World's First Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Island

I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by Pig+Hogger · 2002-05-14 15:15 · Score: 0, Redundant

Perhaps the wave-power station is used to electrolyze water into H and O...

Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by RTFA+Man · 2002-05-14 15:27 · Score: -1, Troll

RTFA
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by PD · 2002-05-14 17:27 · Score: 1

I haven't read the article yet, but I can tell you that they wouldn't use the wave power station to make H2. If they could do that, then they would probably just power the island with wave power and skip the middle step.

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by 56ker · 2002-05-14 17:29 · Score: 2, Redundant

The wave-power station is used to produce the electricity to electrolyse the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

--

Video Game cheats, hints a
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by PD · 2002-05-14 17:32 · Score: 2, Redundant

Hey! I just read the article, and it appears that I was flat out wrong! Oops.

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by 56ker+Fucker · 2002-05-14 17:33 · Score: -1, Troll

Hello catty catty cat. Stating the obvious again :o)

Here is some karma, go buy yourself some pride, and
get a character while you are at it.

--
-- Spot idiocy, adopt a KarmaWhore.
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 18:43 · Score: 0

HA! Imagine that! RTFA next time, before cutting down a poster. In this case though, you're kinda sorta ok, as it certainly looks like the first guy hasn't read even the article SUMMARY, where it's explained 'Scientests at Napier University wish to use the existing Wave Power Station to treat sea water and store the resulting hydrogen in fuel cells.' Duh... you both suck. Hope you both get moderated into the -1 abyss.
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 19:00 · Score: 0

Hope you get hit by a bus.
Re:I wonder where they get the hydrogen... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 00:41 · Score: 0

A hydrogen powered bus?

capitalist propoganda by tps12 · 2002-05-14 15:16 · Score: 0, Troll

This is bullshit. Cuba has been hydrogen-fuel-cell powered for decades.

--

Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)

Re:capitalist propoganda by WIAKywbfatw · 2002-05-14 17:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is bullshit. Cuba has been hydrogen-fuel-cell powered for decades.

I don't know if it was your meant to troll, but troll you did.

Cuba may have made some efforts to use clean, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar) but it's also made considerable effort to use dirty, finite sources as well, including nuclear power.

The nuclear power plant at Juragua has been under construction since 1983. It's not yet been completed, so it's not up and running, but Cuba is still trying to get the plant productive.

Unsurprisingly, for what it calls "safety concerns", the US isn't too keen to see that happen - apparently, it's OK for the US to have nuclear power plants all over the country, nuclear powered ships and submarines and even to launch nuclear powered satellites but God forbid that some communists 200 miles off the coast of Florida should want to use nuclear power too.

It's true that these concerns aren't totally unfounded as the type of reactor that the plant uses (the Soviet-designed VVER-440) doesn't have an exemplorary track record but let's remember that while the USSR had Chernobyl, the US had Three Mile Island.

By withholding its funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency - an overly-aggressive and short-sighted attempt to pressurise that body into abandoning all assistance that its giving Cuba to safely complete and operate the plant - the US is effectively shooting itself in the foot. By doing everything it can to make sure that the Cuban plant isn't built, the US is only ensuring that cost-effectiveness and completion at any cost are the paramount in Cuba's considerations, at the expense of safety.

Yet elsewhere, the US is spending millions to make sure that similar Soviet-designed plants are as safe as possible. Overall, a rather naive approach by US legislators - not the first time and it won't be the last either.

(So, in a way, there is a capitalist conspiracy, but not where you were looking.)

But I digress. Cuba obviously isn't 100 percent wave powered and, frankly, it's never likely to be. Wave power stations cost money too and, if you've got chronic power shortage problems like Cuba has, they're far less cost-effective than the alternatives.

On the other hand, Islay is hoping that its wave power station may soon provide all the energy that it ever needs - a noble goal, well worthy of our praise and good wishes.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:capitalist propoganda by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:55 · Score: 0

Please publish some sort of evidence to back up your claim about Cuba!
Re:capitalist propoganda by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 19:28 · Score: 0

Don't forget: more people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island.
Re:capitalist propoganda by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 21:28 · Score: 0

Free Ted Kennedy!
Re:capitalist propoganda by ivrcti · 2002-05-15 00:35 · Score: 1

The US concern isn't really with a melt-down, its with by products. The soviet style reactors are world famous for producing material that can be made fisionable. Do you want Fidel to have an array of nukes, just as the dementia starts to kick in?
Re:capitalist propoganda by Galvatron · 2002-05-15 00:51 · Score: 2

Cuba can't even make cigars right anymore. Seriously, talk to any tobaccanist, even if they still prefer Cubans, they'll concede that they're not overwhelmingly considered the best as they once were. If Cuba can't even make cigars well, then I'd say concerns about nuclear power plants are well founded.

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:capitalist propoganda by Cally · 2002-05-15 00:57 · Score: 2

By withholding its funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency - an overly-aggressive and short-sighted attempt to pressurise that body into abandoning all assistance that its giving Cuba to safely complete and operate the plant - the US is effectively shooting itself in the foot. By doing everything it can to make sure that the Cuban plant isn't built, the US is only ensuring that cost-effectiveness and completion at any cost are the paramount in Cuba's considerations, at the expense of safety.

[ emphasis mine ]

I'm shocked - SHOCKED! -- that you could think such a thing! Next, you'll be suggesting that the US forced out the head of the body that monitors compliance with international chemical weapons treaties -- even though the USA had ALREADY been granted an unprecedented waiver allowing them to just deny the inspectors access to any facility, without needing to give even an explanation -- because he was saying that it wouln't be a problem to get into Iraq and verify that, in fact, they have no more WMD,and that would remove the US's pretext to bomb a few thousand more women and children to bits.Good heavens, people may then start to wonder if the US forced Mary Robinson out of office as the head of the UNHCR (high commission on refugees) because she spoke up for the human rights of the civilians being massacred in Jenin, and that might slow sales of US tanks, planes, bombs and so on to Israel. They might even suspect that perhaps the Bush administration feels that, because they've got more hydrogen bombs than anyone else, they can do whatever the fuck they feel like, to anyone, anywhere, any time, without needing an explanation more valid than "it's in our best interest". You must surely be some sort of anti-American terrorist hippy communist drug-dealer.People like you should be secretly arrested,imprisoned without trial or access to legal representation, or in short, "disappeared". Oh, wait --

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:capitalist propoganda by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 01:53 · Score: 0

The nuclear power plant at Juragua [nukeworker.com] has been under construction since 1983. It's not yet been completed, so it's not up and running, but Cuba is still trying to get the plant productive.

Call me a nut, but people who take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor probably shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear reactor. It doesn't speak well to their expertise, their equipment, or their likely maintenance plan.
Re:capitalist propoganda by mofolotopo · 2002-05-15 02:41 · Score: 1

Hell of a lot more died at Chernobyl, though. Intentionally skewed sample.
Re:capitalist propoganda by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 07:28 · Score: 0

USSR had Chernobyl

Killed dozens of people and contaminated a large region.

the US had Three Mile Island

Killed nobody, and was safely contained inside the reactor vessel.

Yes, the two situations are EXACTLY the same. (sarcasm).

The fact is that the US nuclear power industry has been operating for about 50 years without ONE fatality to the general public. That's a much better record than coal, oil, or hydro.
Re:capitalist propoganda by lazelank · 2002-05-15 08:08 · Score: 1

"It's true that these concerns aren't totally unfounded as the type of reactor that the plant uses (the Soviet-designed VVER-440) doesn't have an exemplorary track record but let's remember that while the USSR had Chernobyl [chernobyl.com], the US had Three Mile Island [tmia.com]."

eh.. if i remember correctly chernobyl actually caused a huge disaster and lots of people died as a result of it, while tmi, though it had the potential for disaster, was not disasterous. the us does have valid concerns for a little island 200 miles off its coast using a crappy reactor and presumably unsafe precautions. but i guess b/c the US is worried about what a junky dictatorship w/ a pseudocommunist ecomonomy is doing its capitalist propoganda
Re:capitalist propoganda by WIAKywbfatw · 2002-05-15 10:50 · Score: 2

Please publish some sort of evidence to back up your claim about Cuba!

There are these cute little things that you find on many web pages called hyperlinks. If you followed the first one that I included in my posting then you'd have the evidence that you want.

Of course, you could try using your own initiative and perform your own web searches on Juragua, the IAEA, and Cuban power generation in general but I guess that would be too much to ask.

After all, if you can't be bothered to follow a simple link what are the odds that you'll fire up Google, Alta Vista, Yahoo or whatever to do any research of your own?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:capitalist propoganda by WIAKywbfatw · 2002-05-19 10:07 · Score: 2

Imagine your neighbour was putting up a shed in his back garden that overlooked the sandpit that your kids played in. But, because he's never done something like this before he's enlisted the help of the expert builder who lives down the street to help him make sure that the shed's built safely (using the appropriate materials and methods, etc) so that it won't accidentally fall over and squash your kids one day.

In that scenario, why on earth would you stop the good samaritan from making sure that the job was done well? Especially when you know the alternative is that your neighbour will still build the shed but is bound to do a less than perfect job of it?

Why wouldn't you want that shed to be the safest shed in the world?

Hint: because not wanting your neighbour to have a shed at all is clouding your better judgement.

Some people would call this pig-headedness. Others would call it cutting your nose off to spite your face. Or shortsighted. Me? Well, I just call it dumb.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Minor confusion by interiot · 2002-05-14 15:18 · Score: 5, Funny

"Powered Island" != "mobile island which moves because of Hydrogen Power".

Re:Minor confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:53 · Score: 0

In other news... Slashdot poster gains the power of pointing out the obvious. Story at 11.
Re:Minor confusion by The+Wooden+Badger · 2002-05-15 01:11 · Score: 1

I guess that beats a mobile island that moves because of methane. (Don't light a match!)

--
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Re:Minor confusion by TheLink · 2002-05-15 06:29 · Score: 2

Somehow "island which moves because of hydrogen power" makes me think of nuclear fusion ;).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:Minor confusion by Izanagi · 2002-05-15 09:20 · Score: 1

Well, Atleast the byproduct reduces the possibility of suffering from a drought there!

--
SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
Re:Minor confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 14:21 · Score: 0

yeah, because methane is more flammable than hydrogen... not. Idiot
Re:Minor confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-22 01:11 · Score: 0

It hurts to spell out a joke, but here goes. Methane is considered a major constituent in flatulence. Who would want to live on an island that moves by virtue (I'm not sure that is the best wording) of FARTS.

Bizarre Love Triangle by The+Lyrics+Guy · 2002-05-14 15:18 · Score: -1

New Order - Bizarre Love Triangle

Every time i think of you
I feel shot right through with a bolt of blue
It's no problem of mine but it's a problem I find
Living a life that I can't leave behind
There's no sense in telling me
The wisdom of a fool won't set you free
But that's the way that it goes
And it's what nobody knows
While every day my confusion grows
Every time I see you falling
I get down on my knees and pray
I'm waiting for that final moment
You'll say the words that I can't say

I feel fine and I feel good
I'm feeling like I never should
Whenever I get this way, I just don't know what to say
Why can't we be ourselves like we were yesterday
I'm not sure what this could mean
I don't think you're what you seem
I do admit to myself
That if I hurt someone else
Then I'll never see just what we're meant to be
Every time I see you falling
I get down on my knees and pray
I'm waiting for that final moment
You'll say the words that I can't say

I didn't need another reason... by Dambiel · 2002-05-14 15:18 · Score: 5, Funny

but this is just one more reason to drink scotch from Islay.

It's not only delicious, but environmentally friendly too!

Re:I didn't need another reason... by Phillip2 · 2002-05-15 01:45 · Score: 2

Sadly whisky production on Islay involves digging up large quantities of peat, and burning that to produce heat. Which is pretty much as environmentally unfriendly as you can get. Although obviously it makes the whisky taste great.

Phil
Re:I didn't need another reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 02:28 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Bleh. Whiskey tastes like what I imagine shoe leather would taste like(based upon the smell of shoe leather).
Re:I didn't need another reason... by Dr+Caleb · 2002-05-15 02:54 · Score: 2

Mmmmm Laphrohaig.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:I didn't need another reason... by Phillip2 · 2002-05-15 04:05 · Score: 2

I think you are getting confused.

Its "ahh Bisto".....

Phil
Re:I didn't need another reason... by Dr+Caleb · 2002-05-15 05:35 · Score: 2

Nope.
Laphrohaig. It's Islay single malt Scotch. One of my favorites.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:I didn't need another reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 07:24 · Score: 0

Actually, peat is a biofuel, the emissions of CO2
while burning the peat are equal to the CO2 uptake of the plant life that compose the peat.

NOx and SOx are problems though, but they
probably have scrubbers for that.

The trouble with peat is that it doesn't renew fast,
but AFAIR so little peat is used in whisky production that
this isn't a problem.
Re:I didn't need another reason... by mypalmike · 2002-05-15 09:32 · Score: 1

It's ahhh Bunnahabhain. Also from Islay, but with a distinctively (much) less peat-y flavor.

--
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.

Ooo, Future... by Misanthroporama · 2002-05-14 15:18 · Score: 1

So where's my flying car. I'm sick of these antique wheels.

The effects! by ObviousGuy · 2002-05-14 15:19 · Score: 0, Troll

Won't anyone think about the rotation of the Earth?

--
I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.

Re:The effects! by Serial+Troller · 2002-05-14 17:20 · Score: -1

Hmm... yes, it's rotating, isn't it?
There, did I think about it enough?
*goes back to thinking about the Earth rotating*

--
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!
Re:The effects! by ObviousGuy · 2002-05-14 17:38 · Score: 1

Why can't you stop playing these silly games and just say you love me?

--
I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
Re:The effects! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 22:31 · Score: 0

Because he/she/it doesn't love you...

They're just messing with your mind... dump 'em now and be glad you did.

The headline looked like a typo... by Disevidence · 2002-05-14 15:20 · Score: 2, Funny

I can just see it now, a little island scooting around the atlantic using sea water as fuel. Hehe.

--
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.

Population? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 15:21 · Score: 0

A lump of rock off the scottish coast? I expect my fat sister on a exercise bike could generate enough power for the 3 sad-bastards that live there.

Re:Population? by The+Lyrics+Guy · 2002-05-14 15:24 · Score: -1

hi,
picz of ur sis plz? tnx.
Re:Population? by MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM · 2002-05-14 15:24 · Score: -1

Your sister is so fat that when she exercise she pass out.
Re:Population? by raymondlowe · 2002-05-14 15:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Population if Islay is four thousand.
R.
Re:Population? by Observer · 2002-05-14 22:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Plus a few hundred thousand who are there in spirit.
Re:Population? by kaladorn · 2002-05-15 04:21 · Score: 2

Plus a few hundred thousand who are there in spirit.

Or perhaps you meant "in spirits"?

It'll be a sad day when some greenie activists get around to declaring the traditional methods of producing a nice peaty single malt to be environmentally unsuitable and go about forcing a change. Some things just weren't meant to be good for us, just good.

--
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."

Thieves Like Us by The+Lyrics+Guy · 2002-05-14 15:21 · Score: -1

Oh fuck, I posted that one already. Sorry folks. Here's another.

New Order - Thieves Like Us

I've watched your face for a long time
It's always the same
I've studied the cracks and the wrinkles
You were always so vain
Well, now you live your life like a shadow
In the pouring rain
Oh, it's called love
Yes, it's called love
Oh, it's called love
And it belongs to us
Oh, it dies so quickly
It grows so slowly
But when it dies, it dies for good
It's called love
And it belongs to everyone but us

I've lived my life in the valleys
I've lived my life on the hills
I've lived my life on alcohol
I've lived my life on pills
But it's called love
And it belongs to us
It's called love
And it's the only thing that's worth living for
It's called love
And it belongs to us
It's called love
Yes it's called love

Oh, love is found in the east and west
But when love is at home, it's the best
Love is the cure for every evil
Love is the air that supports the eagle
It's called love
And it's so un-cool
It's called love
And somehow it's become unmentionable
It's called love
And it belongs to every one of us
It's called love
And it cuts your life like a broken knife

Aye by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 15:23 · Score: 0

She can't take much more o' that Cap'n!

i've got a better idea by sydlexic · 2002-05-14 15:24 · Score: 1

why not use the power from the wave station to drive a laser which in turn will heat a boiler that can be used to run a turbine which will generate electricity to separate hydrogen from the sea-water?

i love the efficiency of green power. because it's so free, we can waste a lot more.

Re: i've got a better idea by Pelakh · 2002-05-15 04:10 · Score: 1

The reason for the indirect (and inherently less efficient process) is to smooth out the power supply, as well as making it portable. Hydrogen provides a storage media for the times the wave power supply exceeds demand, to be used during the calmer periods. It also provides portable, untethered power (for fuel-cell vehicles, etc.).
Users of alternative energy sources are very sensitive to energy waste and inefficiency, but sometimes it is required by the nature of the problem.

i was gonna say by Sexual+Asspussy · 2002-05-14 15:25 · Score: -1

..i thought i saw that one before. how are you?

Public Image Limited - "Memories"

You make me feel ashamed
At acting attitudes
Remember ridicule
It should be clear by now
Clear by now
Your words are useless
Full of excuses
False confidence
Someone has used you well
Used you well
I could be wrong
It could be hate
As far as I can see
Clinging desperately
Imagining pretending
No personality
Dragging on and on and on and on
And on and on and on and on
I think you're slightly late
Slightly late
This person's had enough
Of useless memories
Always remember
Twisted amenities
Could be wrong
This person's had enough
Of useless memories
Always remember
Twisted amenities
Out of order
Out of order
It could be worse
You're losing all the time
I let you stay too long
I could be wrong
Could be worse
You're losing all the time
I let you stay too long
I Could be wrong
Could be wrong
Whatever past
Could never last
All in your mind
Where it all began
You're doing wrong
It's not the movies
And you're old

Re:i was gonna say by The+Lyrics+Guy · 2002-05-15 00:15 · Score: -1

] how are you?

Not too bad. Tired, horney, etc. Network Solutions is really pissing me off. When I'm done changing contact info for this domain, I'm moving all my domains to another registrar. Faxing in forms and waiting 72 hours for someone to get back to me.. Total bullshit. Every other registrar has a nice web based interface for admin functions, but NetSol is living in 1983 with emailing hostmaster@faggotniggers.org and waiting for some cock lover to change my fucking nameservers.

I bought 1GB of RAM for the PowerBook. Don't need it at all but hey, it's only money.

Are you on IRC anymore? Haven't seen you for quite a while.
Re:i was gonna say by Sexual+Asspussy · 2002-05-15 01:58 · Score: -1

i used to use NetSol back in the day when i didn't know other registrars existed. they're a big mistake. now i have the problem that joker.com changed their system around so only people with the email address of the host contact can change the info. this is no problem for hosts where i put my real name in, but those are few compared to the hosts where i left Stanley Choad (choads@gay.com) as the name...

i'm not on slashnet much. i got the ircops to ban all of mit.edu because of me. that's a class-A network! 1/255th of the addressible internet was blocked due to me!

HA HA HA HA HA by Chinese+Karma+Whore · 2002-05-14 15:26 · Score: -1

*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 15:26 · Score: -1, Troll

It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is ded.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Why not use a renewable resource? by CmdrTaco+(editor) · 2002-05-14 15:28 · Score: 0, Troll

This development of alternative fuels powering large areas is indeed quite encourageing, but given the difficulty of storing large amounts, I would think there would be materials more suited to the task.

For example, the May issue of Wired magazine had an article entitled Farming EU's Windy Coastlines about using wind turbines planted off the coast of Europe to generate power, some the size of the wing span of a 747. I'd like to see a self sufficient power grid built using this technology. Unlike many other renewable resources, this faces little opposition. Used effectively, it would be far cheaper than hydrogen.

This is a good step; any action that diminishes the powers of the evil oil empires is what I would call a good one. Perhaps it will even lead to more developement of hydrogen powered fuel cells and the like.

Re:Why not use a renewable resource? by WIAKywbfatw · 2002-05-14 17:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

This development of alternative fuels powering large areas is indeed quite encourageing...

OK, I know you're trying to pass yourself off as CmdrTaco but can you spare us the obvious atrocious spelling mistakes please?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? by Ophidian+P.+Jones · 2002-05-14 19:43 · Score: 0

>> This development of alternative fuels powering large areas is indeed quite encourageing...

> OK, I know you're trying to pass yourself off as CmdrTaco but can you spare us the obvious atrocious spelling mistakes please? Why would he? He's trying to pass himself off as CmdrTaco, remember?
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? by pacc · 2002-05-14 21:07 · Score: 2

I'm sorry but isn't waves renewable, it would be even better than wind-power if they switched from oil to water in the hydralic system that gives the power.

Hydrogen and fuelcells is only the infrastructure for the energy. There would probably not be a better solution than getting the oilcompanies to transport hydrogen over the world. The origins are still electricity which would probably come from wind or solar power which there are plenty of everywhere. Even if they were to use natural gas from oil-production, hey they burn it for no use today anyway...
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 00:01 · Score: 0

I think this has a lot to do with the appearance of the wind turbines. I've visited the wave power station on Islay, and while it's not going to win any design awards, it doesn't attract much attention either. (it's pretty small and well-hidden.)

However, I have also visited places using wind turbines, and those things are tall, ugly and noticeable. Believe me, on a beautiful Scottish island, errecting tall, nasty-looking towers will not go down too well with the general public. (not to mention, it'll also spoil the beautiful Islay landscape.)
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? by the_2nd_coming · 2002-05-15 00:13 · Score: 2

I wonder what the efficency is of wind and wave powered electolosis of water is.

could green power derived from nature be the best way to extract hydrogen from water as it is constant and basicly 24-7?

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Why not use a renewable resource? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 02:40 · Score: 0

Why don't they do all of the above? It is always "oil vs natural resource" or "solar vs wind", why don't thy use solar, wind, and water? If there are waves, then there is wind so along with a wave power generator, they can also have wind power, and sun if it's a sunny area. Hydrogen is better then natural in my opinion because you can bottle it and ship it somewhere, like lightning in a bottle. Use waves or better yet a waterfall to create electricity, then use the electricity to remove the hydrogen from the water, then ship the hydrogen 1000 miles away and still effective. Try that without hydrogen.

So....? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 15:29 · Score: -1, Troll

You think that is news?

Please! I have a hydregyn powared fuel cell penis, but
you dont see me posting all over slashdot about it,
now do you?

OT: The /. search page is b0rken by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 15:30 · Score: -1, Offtopic

No stories posted. Someone trip over a cable in the server room?

Nifty! by klocwerk · 2002-05-14 15:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

So they're using a completely renuable resource, namely wave power, to separate sea water into O2 and (2) H2.

This is a great idea for any region with significant ocean frontage. Unfortunately, it is only a great idea in such locations. We can't fuel the US gas glutton SUVs via this method, there just isn't enough ocean frontage for all the soccer-moms.

Kudos to a truly self-powered island!

--

"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147

Re:Nifty! by BankofAmerica_ATM · 2002-05-14 17:13 · Score: -1

Dr. Salchica pulled at his beard, eagerly awaiting my response. I had failed at maintaining interactive communication with the host geeks' friends; I wished to flee. Perhaps Salchica, with his background in logic and artificial intelligence, would understand me better.
"I will go with you."
"So what, are you just gonna leave us here?" Randy seemed upset at this possibility. "Who is this Atkins guy anyway, he sounds familiar-"
"Yeah, he was on the local news, they found him in a hotel with some cyborg body, didn't you guys hear about that?" Cora issued her rejoinder, then eyed me curiously, "sizing me up," as you humans say. The process created more static on my DIGITAL/WETWORKS JUNCTURE, mangling ability to perceive and decode human voices.
"-no way. Cyborg? That's gotta be bullshit!" Troi's ever-widening grimace had opened to spew his incredulity. No doubt his unusual amount of vitriol was related to his reject at the hands of Cora.
"It was on the news, don't you guys read the news?" Cora insisted. "But what would this guy want with you?"
Again, I had no answer.
"They-did some work together with me," explained Salchica. "What's important is the man is quite dangerous-and we must get Joel out of here."
"And who are you?" Cora's glance turned to Salchica now. "Were you guys working on the cyborg together or something?"
The interactional plane where I had parlayed with the host geek's friends had now shifted. The three male geeks stared at me quietly, perhaps with a sense of awe. "Wow, I thought you were just doing web design," said Randy with an awkward chuckle. "So...all this time, you've been working on some top-secret cyborg or something?"
"We don't have time for this talk!" Dr. Salchica insisted, grabbing my arm. "Atkins may be on his way!"
More synaptical responses-this time indicating that someone was gripping the arm that was not previously grasped by Dr. Salchica. It was Cora.
"Why are you in such a rush to get away? Why won't you tell us about yourself?" Yes, Cora's hand dug into the flesh of my host geek's right arm. My CONSCIOUSNESS-BUFFER reported no static-this time, a delightful warmth radiated just underneath the body's temples. The warmth possessed an intensity which rivaled the flavor of Raspberry Lik-M-Aid. Perhaps the stimuli that previously caused so much static was now being interpreted properly by my program.
"Listen, I think I can clear this up." It was the third male geek, who had remained silent throughout our evening. I did not know his name-my process of interaction with him could not begin.
"He's a professor down at SAC. Saketh D'Souza, remember me, I had you for Intro to Algorithm Design. Dr. Salchica, right?" Regrettably, Cora's grip on my arm loosened. The good warm feeling remained. I stared at Cora again, and she raised both her shoulders, avoiding eye contact with me. Perhaps her own CONSCIOUSNESS-BUFFER (if you humans possess such a thing) was overcome with static.
"Yes! Now let's get out of here!" Salchica's tone was desperate. As we were passing through the doorframe, Cora's voice exploded once again.
"What if that guy finds you at your lab, or you get hurt or something? Shouldn't someone go with you?"
"I have to take you back home, remember? You told your parents you were going to the library!" Troi's irritated voice paralleled his unkempt hair, which hung down around his face in disturbingly organic angles.
"Well, someone should go with him..." said Cora meekly.
"Forget it!" snarled Troi.
---
"I keep up this lab off my own money, with a little bit of help from my old bosses, the military. But I can't really talk about that." explained Salchica. The non-scent of sterility mingled with the hum of electronics to form a very dull plane of interaction. As Salchica pawed through a stack of papers, I began to run a statistic analysis of Cora's features. As I had posited before, the human female has a number of interesting angles which-
"Joel-take a look at this." My calculations faded into the background as I focused my processing power on perceiving Salchica's voice. "It's a summary of my observations of Atkins' physiology."
"As you can see, when Atkins was first brought to the hospital, his brainwaves appeared quite irregular on normal hospital equipment. But when I scanned them with my own machine, I was able to determine two discrete brainwaves."
"Tell me more about these discrete brainwaves," I replied.
"Well, one was a normal transverse wave, as would be expected from a fully functioning human brain. But there was also a square wave emanating from various centers in the brain. Ones and zeroes expressed in electron flow, if you prefer to look at it that way."
"Additionally, Atkins' brain did produce a huge amount of voltage compared to a normally functioning brain. In order to keep both brainwaves strong, we had to increase the amount of simple sugars in Atkins' diet. With enough sugars in his bloodstream, we could actually increase the amount of voltage passing through his synapses almost to the point of being dangerous to the integrity of the brain." his synapses almost to the point of being dangerous to the integrity of the brain."
"The integrity of the brain?" I inquired.
"Yes," Salchica continued. "But shortly after you left, Atkins' brain activity dropped to comalike levels. Brain activity dropped to almost nothing-except a faint square wave.
A few days later,the normal brainwaves began to return, but then they disappeared for a short time, as you can see on the graph there. The frequency of the square wave (digital) brainwaves fluctuate wildly over the course of around a week before stablizing and ultimately disappearing. The most curious part-Atkins' "normal" brainwaves had greatly increased in frequency and voltage."
"Somehow, a great reshaping took place within Mr. Atkins. Reflex tests indictated that his synapses were firing around 3 times the rate of a normal human. His broken ribs healed rapidly. He and began to speak. Soon, he escaped from the hospital."
"What-do you think happened to him?"
"During the week or so when he was conscious, he kept repeating his thoughts about artificial intelligence-uniting human and computer. One of the few coherent statements he made (besides requesting sugary foods) was about your imperfection as a vessel for digital consciousness, and how he was going to rectify that situation. Shortly after making that statement, he disappeared."
"Interesting." I said, processing the information. I was unable to understand how Atkins' brain would function at all after I left it. Perhaps his human consciousness was not completely obliterated in our duel? But even with his human functionality, how could his brain continue to spew digital information without my knowledge? If this 'information leak' was possible, then what about the integrity of my current host geek's brain?
"It's more than 'interesting', Joel," stated Dr. Salchica. "He killed a hospital attendant with his bare hands while escaping. He put an armed security guard through a plate glass window. And if he finds you, you'll be next."

--
I am a sentient ATM.
Re:Nifty! by div_2n · 2002-05-15 00:23 · Score: 1

If we can build a pipeline to transport oil in from Alaska, we could build a pipeline to transport hydrogen in from some remote seafront where there are no houses and resorts to be bothered by rows upon rows of these stations wherever that is.
Re:Nifty! by Hard_Code · 2002-05-15 00:25 · Score: 2

"there just isn't enough ocean frontage for all the soccer-moms."

Well, then you know what our duty is. Start rounding up the soccar moms...I'll start digging the ditch.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:Nifty! by Cally · 2002-05-15 00:47 · Score: 2

No, you're right. Someday, we (or our children - but before your grandchildren's time,if we're the average /.er age) are going to have to... wait for it... do without SUVs . A terrible thought, I know; we might have to get up off our fat arses and WALK for a change... give it a go some time, it's actually enjoyable believe it or not.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:Nifty! by swb · 2002-05-15 02:23 · Score: 2

we could build a pipeline to transport hydrogen

Something tells me I'd rather live next to Yucca mountain than a hyrdrogen pipeline.
Re:Nifty! by div_2n · 2002-05-15 02:37 · Score: 1

As opposed to an oil pipeline? Hydrogen has the nice property of being MUCH lighter than air. A leak would mostly rise harmlessly into the air unless ignited in which case it would all burn instantly in a flash. Also, a leak wouldn't be an environmental disaster like oil would.

Contrary to popular belief, hydrogen is not more dangerous than say gasoline especially if it isn't pressurized.
Re:Nifty! by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · 2002-05-15 02:43 · Score: 2

My great, great grandchildren, and yours too, will be long dead and gone by the time we run out of coal to generate electricity to power electric cars, which in the future could very well be electic SUVs.
Re:Nifty! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 03:53 · Score: 0

do without SUVs

Some of us don't want to go back to the Dark Ages, hippie.

Let me know when you sell your computer and get the electricity turned off to your house.
Re:Nifty! by CommieLib · 2002-05-15 04:00 · Score: 1

Hmm...America has massive ocean frontage. We have massive energy usage, too, so I don't know how that balances out.

Wave energy is a less intuitive approach to this problem; for a even less intuitive approach think tides...

--
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Re:Nifty! by Manitcor · 2002-05-15 06:36 · Score: 1

Well BMW seems to have the anwser to that with this little known release.

It supposed to be as fast as the normal 750 with the same range too. However the only hyrdogen gas station is in Germany at the moment.

--
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
Re:Nifty! by geekoid · 2002-05-15 08:20 · Score: 2

you know, Soccer-moms are getting a bad rap. Most the one I know thta have an SUV use it for moving kids and stuff.
Its the Person that uses it as there comute car thats the problem. Unless they fill it up with other commuters.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

ESR - "Surprised at Getting Canned" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:15 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Ouch...

Original Surpised by Wealth tidbit here.

+1 Informative

Hydrogen, Jews and Palestine by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:16 · Score: -1, Offtopic

A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all
Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle
East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need.

Don't thank me. I'm a giver. Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that:
There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine
for 2000 years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a
modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by
Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by
Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over
and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say
hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost
"land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word
"Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy
at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's
call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In
Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would
Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And
Death." I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about
this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."

Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more
thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the
last 30 years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your
own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers
of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a
living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the
region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of
course-that's where the real fun is-but mostly they want Israel. Why? For
one thing, trying to destroy Israel-or "The Zionist Entity" as their
textbooks call it - for the last 50 years has allowed the rulers of Arab
countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact
that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward
on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's
really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about
the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing
something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and,
by the way, thanks a h-ll of a lot for that one.Chew this around and spit it
out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews.

Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of
matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if
Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals.
Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to
obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to
drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the
numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was
stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews
strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.
Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to
drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the
murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies
about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting.
No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews
would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with
vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as
Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and,
after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of
supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing
moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told
us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries
that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months
of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day)
start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If
America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all
very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and
kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey,
wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . uh, that is, what a
horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

Re:Hydrogen, Jews and Palestine by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 19:13 · Score: 0

Before the Israelis won the land in war
How do you "win" land in war?
Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."
Even if this was true, it is still not a valid reason to deny a homeland from them.
Can anyone picture the Jews...
Easily.
Now, go away you fucking racist pro-Israel nazi.
Re:Hydrogen, Jews and Palestine by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 19:33 · Score: 0

How do you "win" land in war?
Haven't you ever played Risk?
Re:Hydrogen, Jews and Palestine by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 20:03 · Score: 0

Now, go away you fucking racist pro-Israel nazi.
As much as I hate joining an offtopic thread, and as sickening as that guy's rant is, I do feel compelled to point out that this rant's racist nature stems not from its being pro-Israel but from its being anti-Arab.
Re:Hydrogen, Jews and Palestine by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 18:50 · Score: 0

Off-topic, I know, but this is trash. BTW, if you want to know, the person who wrote the lines to which I am replying is a self-described "humorist" named Larry Miller. It's pretty obvious that the Anonymous Coward just cut-and-pasted, or at worst, it is Miller himself. Here is the link to the original column.
If there was any desire on the part of Israel for peace, they would have given back the land they stole in the '48 and '67 wars. It is not stealing just because the UN, every country in the Western world, and even other Jews call it stealing, but because Israel signed this little contract called the "Fourth Geneva Convention," you may have heard of it. Land gained by war is inadmissable and must be returned as soon as the conflict is over.
Furthermore, if there was a desire for peace, they would have valued it in the 90s when they had it. Yes that's right, after Oslo and prior to the second uprising there was a period when there were only 3 Palestinian terrorist attacks in more than a year. How did the Jews say thank you to the Palestinians for quelling the extremism among their ranks? The assassination of 13 Palestinians (assassination is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention, to which Israel is signatory). Of course, we are also talking about a country where the soldiers shoot children with tumblers just for throwing stones.
Also, let's ask ourselves, which country in the region has actually fired upon US soldiers and sunk one of our ships (prior to the Gulf War)? You guessed it, Israel (we thanked them by selling them more weapons so they could do it again.) In the beginning of the 1967 war, the Israeli army shot and sunk one of our ships, so as to prevent it from reporting intelligence information about the Egyptian army and fleet movements. The reason behind this is because Epypt's air force was on the ground and two-thirds of their army was in Yemen. They were in no position to be the aggressor in a conflict with the Israelis, contrary to what revionist historians will tell you.
Then there is the Israeli nuclear bomb. That's correct; the only country in the region to have a nuclear weapon, and they've gone to nuclear alert three times already. The most interesting part of this story, however, is that the bomb was made with materials stolen from US uranium mines and european reactors, by Israeli intelligence agents. Then, when confronted with the possibility of UN investigations, they demanded that they would not allow the plant to be investigated unless the US agree to sell weapons to them. Now you know where Saddam Hussein got his biggest trick; could you imagine if he demanded to be sold weapons to!?
I'm not defending terrorism, but I'm not going to blindly endorse a country whose soldiers shoot children, and whose signature means nothing. Ariel Sharon is no man of peace, and the recent resolution by Likud that they will never give back any land to the Palestinians is proof that there is no serious desire for peace on either side, especially when you have a country who refuses outsiders to see what it is that they're doing (what are they hiding?).

It's about time! by Spaceman+Spiff+II · 2002-05-14 17:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've been hearing about hydrogen fuel cells for so long now, I'm glad to finally see some progress. What I've heard, though, about it is that "battery-ifying" the hydrogen (turning it into fuel cells) makes up for the pollution your saving by using the fuel cells. Is this still the case, does anyone know? Or is it actually environmentally friendly now from creation to use?

P.S. What's been up with Slashdot lately? It's been really weird.

--
I understand that life's not fair, just why is it never unfair in my favor?

Re:It's about time! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:40 · Score: 0

The new Motto of Slashdot is :
How weird can you get.

They didn't update the logo text yet.

What makes ./ weird actually....you have to wonder. Is it the people posting stupid stuff like I do or is it the people rating the story with random 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Funny, Flamebait, etc?
Or, could it be the simple the world that surround us?
We've been living in a dreamworld Neo....

Ho, regarding the story.... Cell's are cool...but it's really a matter of how many you have left.

I need a plate for my car saying : "You've been slashdotted" .... Would be cool with girls...look cool, they dunno what it means....
What would you tell the girl it means?
I would say :
Ping timeout from the Oven...we go to the restaurant tonight.
Re:It's about time! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 23:49 · Score: 0

Hydrogen is not turned into fuel cells; it is used as fuel in the form of either hydrogen gas or liquid (compressed) hydrogen.

I will not attempt to describe the cell's design, but long story short: the hydrogen is stripped of its electron, which is used for an electric current before rejoining the H atom later. The only byproducts of this interaction are water and heat.

Yes, it is supremely environmentally friendly. Zero emissions from a true fuel cell vehicle.
Re:It's about time! by analyze_this · 2002-05-15 02:18 · Score: 1

Ummmm....
So why wouldn't "girls" know what "slashdot" means?
And if you come across one of those RARE females who would actually know what your cute little plate meant, would she be your dreamgirl?

Dreamworld, indeed, Neo.
Re:It's about time! by drinkypoo · 2002-05-16 14:05 · Score: 2

Probably not. Fuel cells have to be replaced periodically, as they wear out. Fuel cells are probably not the answer, long-term. They are very convenient in certain situations, though.
A Stirling engine would be much better. They wear out too, but instead of requiring costly rare metal replacement parts, they can be machined.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

This is just great by atari2600 · 2002-05-14 17:18 · Score: 1

Now we will have people fighting more than ever for water and Uncle Sam : *cough cough* All your oceans are belong to me *cough cough*. China : Fuck that small country we want all the water around it and India is going to be a regional superpower *cough* and United States of America will have a new state Antarctica...sheesh am i getting unreal?

All your water are still belong to us :(.

Re:This is just great by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:32 · Score: 1, Funny

I think you should get something for that cough.
Re:This is just great by atari2600 · 2002-05-14 17:44 · Score: 1

cough cough yeah - i am drinking diet pepsi twist cough cough - did i tell you i mixed some vodka in it cough with pepper and lime cough...

All this time I thought they were whisky-powered by Delirium+Tremens · 2002-05-14 17:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Else, why would they have so many distilleries on that little piece of land?

Waste of energy! by zandermander · 2002-05-14 17:19 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm supposed to use electricity generating wave turbines to crack water to generate hydrogen so that I can use the hydrogen to produce electricity?

Sounds like a Rube Goldberg method!

Just skip the electrolysis and fuel cells and store the electricity made from the wave turbines in batteries (for cars and such) and feed it into the grid (like they already do).

Other than the obvious live laboratory for the fuel cells which is great, I fail to see how this system will save energy since there is loss any time you convert energy (waves --> electricity --> hydrogen --> electricity).

Re:Waste of energy! by Trinn · 2002-05-14 17:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

you do not save energy because of that. The point is that you can do waves->electricity->hydrogen->transport-& gt;electricity->consumer device you don't have to plug in.
Re:Waste of energy! by DarkSkiesAhead · 2002-05-14 17:59 · Score: 5, Informative

You're right, it isn't perfectly efficient. But, efficiency isn't the most essential aspect of power production. Usability is.

Sadly, the consumer's use of electricity doesn't vary in proportion to the tide. If it did, and the tide always produced exactly the right amount power to keep everyone's lights on then it would be best to pipe the electricty directly from the water to your power outlet. But, that's not the case.

Fuel cells allow them to store the power and distribute it as needed. This ends up being most efficient in the long run because the water-driven power station only needs to produce power equal to the usage averaged over a period of time. It dosen't need to increase production during peak hours and won't be wasteful during off-peak hours. The fuel cells take care of that.
Re:Waste of energy! by morie · 2002-05-14 20:51 · Score: 2

what you say is only true if you are only using the electricity soemwhere where there is a powergrid.
Say you want to drive a clean car. You have an electrical engine. You have to store your energy somewhere, since draging an extensioncord along the road is not a viable solution
You can charge inefficient, mostly very heavy bateries at home, or use the electrical energy to create hydrogen, a light substance that can easily be used to generate electricity for your car again.
The last option is certainly viable.

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Re:Waste of energy! by the_2nd_coming · 2002-05-15 00:19 · Score: 1

I wonder if this meathod, along with dams and wind stations would be the best way to produce Hydrogen.

I mean, if you think about it, we already waist a TON of energy getting electricity out of coal, this type of meathod is basicly storing the energy in nature in hydrogen and then distributing it to cars, homes, and other places that will have their own fuel cell..

I think that this couls be one part of a comprehensive hydrogen producing plan. we can get hydrogen from other places, like geneticly modified BG-Alge.

we need to get off this hydrocarbon thing where we have the mind set that all fuel for a car comes from one natural resource, and all fuel for a powerplant comes from one natural resource, etc.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Waste of energy! by bugg · 2002-05-15 08:04 · Score: 2

What you're proposing (charging a battery and then discharging it) is no better, in fact in many ways it is worse. I can't find a good site to explain in depth how a recharagable battery works, but, remembering from my intro chemistry class it's an oxidation reaction at your anode and the corresponding reduction reaction at your cathode, and it's reversed to recharge- hydrogen brings the advantage of portability (it's easier to transport hydrogen than it is to transport nickle metal hydride) and, from what I've seen, increased practical efficency.

--
-bugg

Will it be tolerated? by Lurgen · 2002-05-14 17:19 · Score: 0

How long will it take before a major oil company interferes to the point where the project ceases? Alternative fuels threaten the very existance of the main oil players, and based on previous topics posted to /. (and many other sites), they could find themselves facing a rather forceful opposition.

(for some reason, I equate the oil companies with the record companies. I'm not sure why, perhaps it's their business model or approach to business...)

--
Disclaimer: All comments were made by randomly mashing my forehead against the keyboard - they do not represent the true opinions of myself, my employer, or the garden gnome sitting next to me.

Re:Will it be tolerated? by Xcott+R13,+3(0,R4) · 2002-05-14 17:42 · Score: 1

I doubt oil companies will see this as a real threat.
All they have to do is keep people using oil until the island is underwater.

(Score: -1, Duh, duh dur DUH DUHHHHURRRHEY DUH)
Re:Will it be tolerated? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:48 · Score: 0

How long will it take before a major oil company interferes to the point where the project ceases?

Depends on whether the Bavarian Illuminati get to them first.

seems a very expensive way by 56ker · 2002-05-14 17:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

of getting some hydrogen! Surely it would be more efficient to use the electricity from the wave power and send it to people's homes rather than using it to electrolyse the water into hydrogen, then burning the hydrogen?

--

Video Game cheats, hints a

Re:seems a very expensive way by josh+crawley · 2002-05-14 17:57 · Score: 5, Informative

You've gotta understand what they are thinking. They're treating Hydrogen gas as a energy container. There's no way to feasibally hold pure energy. It disperses too quick, and cryo-torids are a ways off.

Hydrogen's fairly stable (without presence of oxygen molecules), and it takes only a wee bit of energy to start the chain reaction back to water and a ton of energy.

But to answer your question: yep, its expensive as hell.
Re:seems a very expensive way by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 18:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Hydrogen is hardly the way to store 'pure energy' (whatever THAT is). It's no more feasible than batteries, except batteries don't get you government grants and hot lab assistants to exploit.
Re:seems a very expensive way by oever · 2002-05-14 21:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hydrogen is a mobile energy container. Immobile energy containers can be much more efficient. The best thing I can thing of is gravitional energy: pump water to a higher place. Moving up a solid away from the earth is even more efficient, but can't be scaled up nicely. Some sort of huge elevator would be very efficient, but rather small scale.

--
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Re:seems a very expensive way by aaarrrgggh · 2002-05-15 03:30 · Score: 1

Thank God for Government Subsidies!

Really, though... isn't that area supposed to have almost constant wind, and suitable for offshore windmills? I agree with the parent that the fuel cells seem to just be a toy...

*evil cackle* by JanusFury · 2002-05-14 17:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Once the hydrogen fuel cell is complete, my plan for world domination will be one step closer to completion! I must only get my secret island stronghold fully operational, then kick off all the islanders, and I can blackmail the United Nations for... 5 BILLION DOLLARS! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();

Re:*evil cackle* by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 00:09 · Score: 0

Once the hydrogen fuel cell is complete, my plan for world domination will be one step closer to completion! I must only get my secret island stronghold fully operational, then kick off all the islanders, and I can blackmail the United Nations for... *puts pinky finger in corner of mouth* 5 BILLION DOLLARS! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Re:*evil cackle* by rif42 · 2002-05-15 06:10 · Score: 1

> my plan for world domination will be one step closer

Sorry, but you seem to be too late. According to the article in the Herald newspaper:

... Denmark is now the world leader ...

Obey the leader ;-)

Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by josh+crawley · 2002-05-14 17:34 · Score: 0, Troll

OK. Let's understand what they're doing.

1: Seawater is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen (with lots of energy in the bonds)
2: Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.
3: The H2 is stored until used in Hydrogen Fuel cells. Combining of Hydrogen gas, Oxygen gas and heat give lots of heat. This turns turbines.

First problem. The solar cells are way innefficent. I'm guessing about 10% (10% of sun is turned into usable electric current). Electrolysis would be too slow, not to mention how expensive even 1 solar panel is. However, I've heard of a man at Purdue who has a prototype of a solar panel that is efficent to 35%. Problem is it's too expensive to make, and it takes more energy to make it than you can gather in it's whole lifetime.

Second problem: All that Hydrogen gas has to be stored somewhere, and in air-tight containers. The only feasible way I can see it being stored is in liquid or metal form. Those takes nasty pressures and tempatures. Gasoline is already fairly dense and has a good energy density.

Third problem: You still lose a lot of energy in turning the turbines.

Overall, I'd HATE to see how inefficent it really is. OH well. BTW, isthis sponsored by any eco-freaks?

Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

Hydrogen cells are a mature technology. Ballard makes a nice one.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by foniksonik · 2002-05-14 17:58 · Score: 1

The thing is... once you spend the initial money on the system it is self sustaining w/ moderate maintenance... far cheaper than drilling distributing and refining gasoline. Plus it is self contained, ie no taxes or outside control forces, etc.

It doesn't matter how inefficient it is if the source of the all the energy is free (minus startup costs).

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by CaptainCarrot · 2002-05-14 18:00 · Score: 5, Informative

OK. Let's understand what they're doing.
Yes, let's. You certainly don't.
1: Seawater is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen (with lots of energy in the bonds)
No, the energy of a water molecule is lower than that of hydrogen and oxygen in pure form. You have to add energy to the system to break water down. It's an endothermic reaction. If there were lots of energy "in" the bonds within water, water would burn.
2: Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.
Yes, they're electrolyzing hydrogen out of the seawater. No, they're not generating the electricity from solar panels. They're using a plant that generates electricity from the motion of the waves.
3: The H2 is stored until used in Hydrogen Fuel cells. Combining of Hydrogen gas, Oxygen gas and heat give lots of heat. This turns turbines.
No, not even partial credit for this one. The hydrogen is stored in tanks of some kind: "bottled" is the term they used. Proton exchange membrane fuel cells generate electricity directly from a reaction with the hydrogen (which is fed to the cell from the tank) and the oxygen in the air. You get electricity and heat, along with pure water for exhaust. There's not necessarily a turbine involved at all, although for maximum efficiency in a stationary installation you could conceivably capture the heat and use it to drive a turbine so as to increase your electrical output. But that's not really necessary; a fuel cell makes electricity all by itself.
No need to comment on your blather about solar cells; there aren't any involved. Nobody stores hydrogen in metal form as this requires temperatures near 0K. You could store it in liquid form cryonically, but it's more often stored as compressed gas at high pressure.

--
And the brethren went away edified.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by foniksonik · 2002-05-14 18:02 · Score: 1

Oh yeah and since they've already invested in the highest priced component (the wave turbines) their initial startup costs for this are significantly less.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by josh+crawley · 2002-05-14 18:05 · Score: 2

---"It doesn't matter how inefficient it is if the source of the all the energy is free (minus startup costs)."---

That's the key. The BIG issue here is break-even. You cant go over 100%(cause of thermodynamics), but you can compare efficency of that plan to that of Standard Oil (semi-pun intended). And no, it's not all startup coses and minimal maintenance. YOu know those big heavy propane drums? Well, the hydrogen drums will have to be much heavier and costlier, because H2 can break open microfractures in seals.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by nanoakron · 2002-05-14 21:45 · Score: 1

Well, I don't know particularly what this group are planning to use to store their hydrogen, but there are a number of possibilities - some more futuristic than others.

http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/hydroge n_ storage.html is a good place to start.

1 - Metal Hydrides. A bit futuristic for now, still a little expensive to produce and bulky (but that's not a problem for a storage plant, as opposed to a moving vehicle)

2 - Carbon nanotubes etc. etc. The hydrogen equivalent of vapourware at this stage.

3 - Hydrogen Tanks. Either as liquid (cryo) storage or compressed gas storage. Your point about 'heavy, costly H2 drums' breaking open is really for the gas storage - where pressures must reach around 6,000psi!

4 - Liquid hydrogen tanks. These are probably the best idea in a system such as the one they're proposing. It's horribly inefficient (the H2 must be kept at around -250C - that's 25 Kelvin!) meaning that lots of the hyrogen will boil off (around 30%).

The good thing is that the hydrogen that does boil off can be used to generate energy for liquifying new hydrogen from the electrolyser. This closes the loop somewhat and reduces wastage. Likewise, because there's a steady stream of hydrogen coming into the system, any minor amounts escaping (boiling off) won't be so important, because some of the incoming stream can be diverted to maintain refridgeration.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by nanoakron · 2002-05-14 21:49 · Score: 1

A good retort, but just one small point:

Metal Hydride storage functions at room temperature. They require energy input to liberate any stored hydrogen. The best idea is to use any excess heat liberated from the PEM (proton exchange membrane) to do this, thereby minimising wastage.

-Nano.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by the_2nd_coming · 2002-05-15 00:27 · Score: 1

then you are right back to where you were with water.

Hydrogen is very stable with out O2. I see no reson why people can not just by canisters of H2, and plig them into the car like you do a propain tank.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 00:40 · Score: 0

They will. And you will too if Ballard Power is correct in predicting the future.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by The+Wooden+Badger · 2002-05-15 01:22 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, solar panels are running at about 15% efficiency right now. But who's counting?

--
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 02:10 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Is that you, Mr. Vice-President?
Re:Who sponsored this? GreenPeace? by armb · 2002-05-15 03:26 · Score: 2

> Metal Hydride storage functions at room temperature.

Yes, but when the original clueless poster said "in metallic form" he probably meant metallic hydrogen.

Which apparently can exist as a liquid at relatively high temperatures and huge pressures:
http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/meta lhydrofact.h tml
"they found that metallization occurs at pressure equivalent to 1.4 million times Earth's atmospheric pressure, nine times the initial density of hydrogen, and at a temperature of 3000 K (5000 F). Because of the high temperature, the
hydrogen was a liquid."
(They did cool it to 20K before hitting it with a shock wave though).

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu 48 8-1.htm says "Livermore physicists have the best evidence yet that deuterium, a heavy form of hydrogen, is metallic at pressures as low as 50 GPa with temperatures near 8000 K. These conditions are near those expected in Jupiter's interior."

Not that we're likely to be mining Jupiter's core for fuel anytime soon.

--
rant

OffTopic-is modding broke? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:44 · Score: 0

I'm looking at the threashhold, and there's no comments posted above 2. There's also seemingly no moderation. Would a Editor mention if they know if anything's going on?

josh crawley -

Re:OffTopic-is modding broke? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 17:45 · Score: 0

Not only that, the entire Search system is hosed. :-(

Wave power, fuel cells by geoswan · 2002-05-14 18:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.

I think if you re-read the original article you will see that hydrolysis is powered by wave energy, you know, ocean waves, not light waves.

Also, may I point you at a simple explanation of how fuel cells work? It has this cool animated gif, displaying the process. Note: no turbines.

There is this really cool tool on the web, called google, it is a search engine. You can use it to look things up, before you post stuff, preventing you from looking like a complete dope. You should try it out!

Do fish/seals get killed in this wave machine? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 18:00 · Score: 0

Just curious.

Re:Do fish/seals get killed in this wave machine? by speedbump · 2002-05-15 02:56 · Score: 1

Less so than they get killed by being dashed upon jagged shoreline rocks. The illustration on one of the links shows a smooth inner chamber that is partially filled with water. The water level rises and falls with the 'motion of the ocean', thus creating changes in air pressure inside the chamber, and driving a Wells turbine to generate electricity.

In fact, it just occurs to me that one maintenance concern of this generator is that operators must occasionally scrape the insides of it to clear it of mineral deposits and sea growth. Otherwise, the amount of water in the inner tank slowly diminishes, making the conversion of wave energy to electrical less efficient.

Oh well, there's no such thing a s a free lunch.
Re:Do fish/seals get killed in this wave machine? by Banner · 2002-05-15 03:36 · Score: 1

Probably.
But no matter how good it is, I can guarentee you the greens and other enviro-nazi's will be protesting it eventually.
They protest -anything- that generates power effectively and that people use.

frisp by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 18:02 · Score: 0

first rhode island sucks post

Ummm what about the envirorment? by red5 · 2002-05-14 18:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

We all know that when we use hydrogen power the waste is water vapor.
Won't all this vapor make the climate much wetter causing it to rain more and so on?

Plus since from what I've been told the vapor comes from the hydrogen mixing with oxygen in the air. Won't this also lower the oxygen content of the air?

Please tell me I'm completely off my rocker.
Or better yet explain why :)

Thank you.

--
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.

Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 18:08 · Score: 0

The wetter, the better.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by CaptainCarrot · 2002-05-14 18:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Won't all this vapor make the climate much wetter causing it to rain more and so on?
Actually, I believe you get liquid water, not water vapor. It's pure and potable, although you'd probably want to add some minerals for taste. It may not be practical for vehicles to dump their exhaust into the public water supply, so you could either dribble it out behind as you go, or tank it to be dumped when you refuel. Or perhaps some clever engineer can come up with some other use for it.
Plus since from what I've been told the vapor comes from the hydrogen mixing with oxygen in the air. Won't this also lower the oxygen content of the air?
At a guess, not more than the internal combustion engine already does. All combustion draws oxygen out of the air. But if you look at the whole process from end to end, you see that oxygen is necessarily produced from the seawater along with the hydrogen. Assuming that oxygen eventually makes its way back into the atmosphere, either through being released on the spot or used in some application where it wasn't a reactant, there's no net loss.
But that leads to a good question: electrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen in exactly the proportions needed for a fuel cell. Why don't they bottle the oxygen as well, and use that to feed the fuel cells' cathode? It would result in a significant boost in efficiency.

--
And the brethren went away edified.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by gerardrj · 2002-05-14 18:37 · Score: 1

True, some of the exaust may be water vapor. They could always condense the exaust and flow it to the local water works to be mixed with the drinking water. The stuff is nearly pure.
I doubt the exaust uncaptured would alter the climate in that region much. But water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most common one at that.

Even if the reaction takes oxygen from the air you've got to remember the electrolisys phase. They probably released that O2 back to the atmosphere. Personally I'd harness it and run it in to the fuel cell along with the hydrogen.

Besides, it would all balance out in the end. Whether humans are in the mix when the balance occurs is another question all together. :)

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by mcoppock2 · 2002-05-14 20:33 · Score: 1

The water is being electrolyzed to hydrogen and oxygen, which is then being converted back to water in the fuel cell. No net change. Water isn't being "dumped" into the environment, as the water originally came from somewhere. And oxygen isn't being "used up", because it was created in the electrolysis process.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by jackal! · 2002-05-14 20:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why don't they bottle the oxygen as well, and use that to feed the fuel cells' cathode? It would result in a significant boost in efficiency.
Good question. Your're right about the efficiency, and it could be done that way. The only problems aren't really problems as much as they are things we're too lazy to go out of our way to deal with.
First problem: you've got another thing to tank up and cart around. You think it's hard trying to get stations to carry H, try getting them to carry H and O.
Second problem: Oxygen is dangerous, more volitile than Hydrogen which, contrary to common belief, isn't the most explosive thing in the world.
Third problem: Maybe there is one, but I haven't heard of it...
Like I said neither of these are real problems. For instance, looking a number 2, oxygen probably isn't any more dangerous than carrying around gallons of something like, say, gasoline. The real issue is more about implementation and the "why bother" attitude about packaging and transporting something that's 20 percent of the air around us.

--
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by red5 · 2002-05-14 20:49 · Score: 2

Yes but it's not the same water and oxygen now is it?
The oxygen is likely being released into the atmosphere at point A
and the water/water vapor at point B.
So unless I'm missing something once we all have fuel cell cars we'll be in trouble.

--
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by Changer2002 · 2002-05-15 01:25 · Score: 1

If this water vapor gets sent into the environment and this is done on a large scale, will this have adverse affects on the climate? If not for the movement of water from point A to B, then for the amount of water vapor being released. On a small scale it probably wouldn't matter, but if say cars run on this stuff and don't do a condensation first then a lot more water will end up in the air than before (talking on the scale of current day fossil fuel emmissions), what would the consequences of that be?
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by dara · 2002-05-15 02:46 · Score: 1

Why don't they bottle the oxygen as well, and use that to feed the fuel cells' cathode? It would result in a significant boost in efficiency.

PEM fuel cells (the only ones I vaguely understand) work on the principle of a hydrogen atom wanting to squeeze through a membrane to get to the oxygen atom on the other side and losing its electron in the process. That electron travels the long way around through a load (motor, light, etc.). I'm not aware of any substantial efficiency improvements in PEM cells by using pure oxygen compared to normal atmospheric percentages (around 22%). What are your numbers? I'd be less surprised if the power density (W/kg of equipment) could be increased, but efficiency (J/kg of H2) increases seem less likely.

Dara Parsavand
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by speedbump · 2002-05-15 03:14 · Score: 1

This is a legitimate question.

The process here is converting mechanical energy (wave action) to electrical (via a turbine) to create bottled hydrogen so that the Islay islanders can power dryers and televisions and such via their own fuel cells.

Most hydrogen fuel cells convert hydrogen by an electrochemical process, and distilled water is the 'byproduct'. This is a more efficient way of generating electricity than burning hydrogen (like we burn gas) to create mechanical energy. In the case of burning hydrogen, yes, the byproduct is water vapor and a small amount of heat.

I doubt that the islanders would notice an increase in humidity in their immediate environment anyway... I'm sure their humidty level is 100% most of the time!
Re:Ummm what about the envirorment? by CaptainCarrot · 2002-05-15 10:40 · Score: 1

I don't remember the numbers exactly, but using air rather than pure oxygen requires that you compress the air for the fuel cell to operate optimally. The energy expended in compression is what's gained in terms of efficiency.
If PEM fuel cells are ever to be used alongside conventional fuels, a pure oxygen supply helps another way: CO can damage them. Where there is a significant amount of CO in the air, they just won't work as long or as efficiently as they might. Paradoxically, this would be in the most heavily polluted places that would benefit most by early adoption of this technology.

--
And the brethren went away edified.

Re:All this time I thought they were whisky-powere by lostguy · 2002-05-14 18:15 · Score: 1

I know I'm volatile and prone to inflammability after downing a few measures of Lagavulin!

The usual questions *sigh* by ariux · 2002-05-14 18:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

How much did the plant cost to build?
How much will it cost to operate?
What is the environmental impact?
How many such plants could feasibly be built around, say, continental Asia? How would their output compare to (in our example) Asia's overall energy consumption, or a projection of its future energy needs?

According to the article, the plant produces 500 kilowatts.

Btw, even if these answers aren't so great, it's still a cool experiment - but you have to cite more details than the article does to reasonably brag that you'd save the world except that the evil oil companies won't let you. :(

Re:The usual questions *sigh* by Hadlock · 2002-05-15 02:13 · Score: 1

how many kW does a nuclear, or coal power plant produce? in sim city 2000 i recall it being roughly 1200kW for nuclear, while coal only produced 400 or 800.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:The usual questions *sigh* by rif42 · 2002-05-15 07:10 · Score: 1

Wave energy plants like the Islay construction are scarce and difficult because they can only be buildt at special locations. You need a ocean front location to get powerful waves but you steep cliff of rock to support the special air turbine construction. AFAIK In Europe the only resonable good locations are on some coast parts in Norway, Scotland and at Portugal.

Currently wave energy are more experimental than an effecient energy source.

> According to the article, the plant produces 500 kilowatts.

500 kilowatts is peanuts for energy production. Nowadays a run-of-the-mill windmill is well above 1 Megawatt, the top performer is something like 2.5 MW for a windmill meant for off-shore placement.

For windpower (and probably also for wave power) you must count in that they dependent on wind conditions, i.e. it is only a percentage of the time that it will produce full power. I have seen figures estimating 3300 hours per year of good wind conditions for a land based location.

A coast or off-shore location will most often give the best wind conditions.

Offshore placement of windmills probably is the most efficient renewable energy source for the near future (10 years). At that time solar energy panels might be costs effective for large scale usage.

Not really a "long term" energy source though. by gerardrj · 2002-05-14 18:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Someone joked "Won't anyone think about the rotation of the Earth?"

The question has a much more serious ramification than the jokester may have realized:

The Earth is slowing down and will eventually break this system.

The Moon ya see is creating these things called tides that this generation plant is at least partially dependent upon.
The friction of the water being drug across the surface of the Earth by the moon is slowing decelerating the earth. Eventually the Moon will become geosynchronous with the Earth, and the lunar tides will cease.

If lunar tides cease to exist, ocean temperatures will likely equalize a little (less water movement at all), and so winds will become less intense. Lower wind speeds mean lower waves (wind and tides are the major causes of waves).

This may not really be the long term soution they think it is.

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people

Re:Not really a "long term" energy source though. by aztec1430 · 2002-05-14 18:40 · Score: 1

But I think we'll be on to something better by the time it's noticable... 1,000,000+ years is a long time...

Cheers,
Richard
Re:Not really a "long term" energy source though. by jackal! · 2002-05-14 20:44 · Score: 5, Funny

A similar problem exists with solar energy. If we become too dependant on solar, we'll be totally up a creek in just under 5 billion years.

--
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
Re:Not really a "long term" energy source though. by gerardrj · 2002-05-15 04:33 · Score: 1

But there are also long term effects of large scale solar power: By using solar panels on a large scale, you take quite a bit of enery out of the biosystem by converting it in to electricity. Yes some of that will come back as dissapated heat during use of that power. Right now with PV cells hobering around 8-12% efficiency and limited use it's not an issue. What happens when PVs are 70% efficient and we've covered vast portions of the planet with them. There may be changes in at least regional weather patterns. Same thing with wind power. If you put a large number of wind turbines on a coastline, stealing energy from the wind, there will evenually be concequenses down-wind. Perhaps a river will slowly change course because of less debis being blown in. Perhaps less rain will fall inland. I'm not saying that any of these things will happen. I just never see anyone talking about them as a possibility at all. People just seem to think we can use these "renewable" resources at will and without issue. Perhaps the environmentalists need to take a step back and scutinize their plans as harshly as they do the current systems. Look what happened to hydro power. That said, I'm all for alternative/renewable energy sources. It'll be a nice solution until the tocamaks become viable (sustainable positive energy output).

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Re:Not really a "long term" energy source though. by cybercuzco · 2002-05-15 05:04 · Score: 2

If lunar tides cease to exist, ocean temperatures will likely equalize a little (less water movement at all), and so winds will become less intense
This is wrong, but only because youve got a bigger problem. When the tides cease to exist, it means that the earth is rotating much much slower than it is now, say once every 28 days (or longer, the moons orbital period is getting longer too) This means that for 14 days any point on the earths surface is in sunlight. The reason we have decent temperate weather around here is because every 12 hours the earth cools back down. The equilibrium temperature at the earths orbital radius is 121 degrees C. The longer we stay in the sun the more likely the oceans will boil off. Not to mention the extremely cold temperatures that will occur on the night side of the planet. As the oceans boil on one side of the planet they will recondense on the dark side, which would be pretty cool to watch, but would eventually scour the planet smooth due to massively increased erosion.

--
Re:Not really a "long term" energy source though. by Adrenochrome · 2002-05-15 06:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Hell, every time we convert energy from one form to another, we're contributing to the heat death of the universe. (See also, the simplified laws of thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit.) Earth, schmerth. We're talking about the entire universe here. See what your evil SUV is doing! What kind of universe are we leaving to our grand(2.35x10^14)children! -- If enviromentalists *really* cared about the environment, they'd kill themselves.

Did they say Islay? by matsh · 2002-05-14 18:29 · Score: 2

Well, their whiskey is clearly too good to use for fuel...

Mats

Re:Did they say Islay? by permaculture · 2002-05-14 18:39 · Score: 1

Generate all the power you like, I still say Islay will handle like a cow: slow up to cruising speed and no good on corners.
Other islands are more streamlined, like Egg fr'instance?

--
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
Re:Did they say Islay? by fantomas · 2002-05-14 21:45 · Score: 1

like Egg fr'instance?

You bin on the water of life? Where's this Egg place then? somewhere near Huy Brasil? surely you refer to Eigg? (though I think Muck would take the corners better...)

How appropriate... by Colz+Grigor · 2002-05-14 19:21 · Score: 2

How appropriate that my favorite C2H5OH, made by Laphroaig on Islay, will one day be manufactured entirely using H.

::Colz Grigor // I'll take donations of it, too!

Re:How appropriate... by macshit · 2002-05-14 20:49 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I think Lagavulin is nicer -- Laphroiag is a bit, er, over the top. Lagavulin still has the strong Islay character (think ultrasmoke), but stops short of whacking you over the head with a crowbar; instead, it ... seduces you. Christ I can't begin to explain how perfect the stuff is. Just try it.

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:How appropriate... by morie · 2002-05-14 20:58 · Score: 2

Add a drop of water to Laphroiag (Just ONE drop!!) and kill the "over the top" exerience and release a more subtle experience.
Lagavullin is my other favorite as well, but Laphroiag is very well this way and for me even outranks Lagavullin

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Re:How appropriate... by Colz+Grigor · 2002-05-14 21:10 · Score: 2

Either you like the taste of peat and hint of seaweed in your whiskey or you don't... There are seven distilleries on Islay (Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Bunnahabhain, Bowmore, Caol Ila, and Bruichladdich), each with a slightly different flavor. All are exceptional.

::Colz Grigor

What's that smell? by dirvish · 2002-05-14 19:33 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I had a lot of pizza tonight and I think I could power that island with methane right about now.

--
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,

eco-freaks or petrol heads? by fantomas · 2002-05-14 19:59 · Score: 2

is this sponsored by any eco-freaks?

Are you one of those fake readers created by US oil companies?

Can't be less efficient than drilling oil in some far off country like the USA and shipping it 3000 miles to be used...

Re:eco-freaks or petrol heads? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 22:00 · Score: 0

No need to go to the US (they don't export anyway). There's plenty to be had in the North Sea.

Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 20:40 · Score: 0

In 26 years I'll be drinking enviroment friendly Lagavulin whiskey

:)

I was going.. by saqmaster · 2002-05-14 20:51 · Score: 1

.. to try this.

Actually, I was going to have a play with it to make a self-running radio transmitter stuck up a tree.

Either way, check out this site http://www.bullnet.co.uk/shops/test/hydrogen.htm - they sell hydrogen fuel cells and have some information on them.

--
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."

Islay's Second Product? by stereoroid · 2002-05-14 21:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Let's see:

Islay will be producing oxygen as a byproduct of the hydrogen generation;
Islay is also famous for its whisky.

So, will we be seeing oygenated whiskey as Islay's Next Big Thing? It could conceivably slow or prevent the loss of brain cells. It's a pity they're not going to produce Helium (squeak)...

--
(this is not a .sig)

Re:Islay's Second Product? by Sanga · 2002-05-15 11:13 · Score: 1

Oxygen too leads to brain cell death ... no?

As long as all that H2 doesn't affect the flavor.. by billstewart · 2002-05-14 21:43 · Score: 1

Hey, there are priorities in life :-)

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

You may find it beneficial to know... by Golantig · 2002-05-14 22:39 · Score: 1

...that Islay is pronounced eye-la, not eye-lay.

Wind, not tides by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-14 23:28 · Score: 0

I beleive the major factor in generating waves is wind, not tides. Tides likely complicated the design of the wave powered generator.

Who DOESN'T know where Islay is? by CrystalFalcon · 2002-05-14 23:50 · Score: 2

The world's finest whiskies come from this little tiny island! Who does NOT know where it is? (At least, somebody with a small interest in whisky?)

Bowmore, Laphroiagh, Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Port Ellen, Bruichladdich, Caol Ila and Bunnahabhain -- eight distilleries on this island, each one of them producing a fantastic malt. (Though my favorite right now is a 17yo Ardbeg.)

Sadly though, some of these stills have been dozed...

Seriously, what do they need hydrogen for? They have plenty of fuel, just tap from the stills :-)

Like this: by Confuse+Ed · 2002-05-15 00:13 · Score: 1

The Dinorwig pump storage station in Wales.

I'd guess that hyrdogen cells have an even faster startup time than the claimed 12 seconds of Dinorwig though

Homer...or Willy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 00:26 · Score: 0

Mmmmm...hydrogen powered Laphroaig!

Bottling, why not pipe it? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 00:49 · Score: 0

Ok. I love the idea of using hydrogen as the storage medium for the wave-generated electricity.

What I don't like is the idea that they are gonna bottle the hydrogen, and make people go pick it up.

Assuming that everyone already has a gas pipeline to the local natural gas supplier, they could simply pipe the hydrogen to the gas supplier, which would then pump the hydrogen to the island homes and buildings.

I suppose the gas company could only switch segments of the population over by area. One area would have to switch to hydrogen from gas all at once.

Damn. We need fuel cells that can take either natural gas or hydrogen before this will be feasible. Once everyone can use either gas or hydrogen, the switch over to pure hydrogen can be accomplished.

Re:Bottling, why not pipe it? by CBenning · 2002-05-15 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

The existing infrastructure for transporting natural gas is unfortunately insufficient to transport hydrogen gas.

The hydrogen atom is the smallest one around and tends to leak like crazy if given the chance. This is part of the reason why hydrogen power is so expensive. A valve that would stop propane or methane flow looks like a wide open door to hydrogen gas!

Cheers,
Colin

You forgot one. by C4v3_7r0ll · 2002-05-15 01:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps the most important and certainly the "cleanest" storage method for H2.

Sodium Borohydride (soap).

Chrysler even made a minivan that uses it. It acts as the H2 storage medium and is easily 're-energized'. Think about it. No explosive H2 to mess with. You get in a wreck and the only thing that leaks out is soap and water. Clean streets!

Even Better by C4v3_7r0ll · 2002-05-15 01:56 · Score: 1

Hydrogen is very stable with out O2. I see no reson why people can not just by canisters of H2, and plig them into the car like you do a propain tank.

Why not do one even better? If there was a way to safely store H2 in a medium that required no special containers or pressurization, would you buy it? Chrysler hopes so. Check this out. If I had a way to refuel it, I would already have one.

Re:Even Better by the_2nd_coming · 2002-05-15 03:12 · Score: 1

all we need is some moleculethat will not lock in the hydrogen and not cause polution if cumbusted.

right now, compressed hydrogen will do me just fine.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

20 year to build a nuke plant by hndrcks · 2002-05-15 02:03 · Score: 2

It took eighteen years to get one on-line in the US... what's so bad about 20?

--
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.

Re:20 year to build a nuke plant by morbid · 2002-05-15 03:10 · Score: 0

Dungeness B in Kent, UK took 21 years to build and comission. It was the first commercial AGR to be built, but one of the last to be comissioned, it took so long...
Also, gas cooled reactors have different characteristics to water-cooled ones, different protection requirements, different Maximum Credible Accidents etc.
The AGR is a very safe design, and gives a very low radiation dose to staff (and the environment) and is 40% efficient c.f. 33% for a PWR.

--
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.

I love /. groupthink. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 02:17 · Score: 0

/. Groupthink:

"Don't block my porn, it's my right to choose what I look at - nobody should have the right to choose what I should look at unless it's me!"

"SUV's are evil, nobody should have the right to choose what they drive unless it's environmentally friendly enough for me!"

Freedom to choose porn = good, freedom to choose vehicle = bad.

Re: I love /. groupthink. by klocwerk · 2002-05-15 02:46 · Score: 1

How is this groupthink?
It's my personal opinion, which also happens to be shared by most of the intelligent people in the world.
And quite honestly I'm more worried about the rate that we're chewing through our oil reserves than the environment. The environment's a lot hardier than people give it credit for.
*flame off*

--

"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
Re: I love /. groupthink. by glrotate · 2002-05-15 03:12 · Score: 1

I'm more worried about the rate that we're chewing through our oil reserves

Probably because you've never taken a look at the real numbers.

Never mind the economics. Take a look at something called the theory of the mine. Price is a measure of scarcity. If oil was becoming scarce the price would be going up. It isn't.
Re: I love /. groupthink. by dionysis12480 · 2002-05-15 10:06 · Score: 1

/. Groupthink:
...
Freedom to choose porn = good, freedom to choose vehicle = bad.

More like freedom that does not hurt others = good, freedom to do something that damages others = bad. Seems reasonable don't you think?

It's Willy Wonka's soap car! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 02:31 · Score: 0

Wow, I'm having visions of people driving cars like that one in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with all the bubbles...

Build your own fuel cell by Froze · 2002-05-15 02:46 · Score: 1

If anybody is interested in this kind of tech for doit yourself applications, I found this nifty guide
build you own fuels cell at homepower mag.

--
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.

What happened to ... by shrikel · 2002-05-15 03:26 · Score: 1

... Iceland? I thought they were going to be first.

--
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.

Makes sense to me. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 03:36 · Score: 0

You are using "Laser Beam" technology, after all.

Hydrogen Source by happyclam · 2002-05-15 03:49 · Score: 2

A lot of the discussion has been around the production of the hydrogen for the fuel cells. An interesting side note: California Solar Center has a weekly new clipping service that, this week, has this article about scientists discovering huge, natural stores of H2 gas. From the article:

LONDON -- Scientists have discovered vast quantities of hydrogen gas, widely regarded as the most promising alternative to today's dwindling stocks of fossil fuels, lying beneath the Earth's crust.

The discovery has stunned energy experts, who believe that it could provide virtually limitless supplies of clean fuel for cars, homes and industry.

--
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."

water vs. whisky by retiarius · 2002-05-15 04:59 · Score: 1

excerpt, from robin williamson's
"rab's last wollen testament":

Water is the strong stuff
It carries whales and ships
But water is the wrong stuff
Don't let it get past your lips
It rots your books
It wets your suits
Puts aches in all your bones
Dilute the stuff with whisky
Aye, or leave it well alone

Not So Environmentally Friendly by CBenning · 2002-05-15 05:02 · Score: 1

I don't understand why wave power is touted as an eco-friendly power source. If anything, it is worse than gas or nuclear.

In order to provide a decent amount of power it is necessary to essentially pave a large section of the coastline - one of the most ecologically sensitive habitats around!

The most ecologically sound solution would be to put four high-efficiency nuclear plants in Siberia that do nothing but produce hydrogen. The hydrogen could then be used to power cars and contribute to the power grid. Bury the nuclear residue in the wasteland and leave the coast to the fishies.

Cheers,
Colin Benning, EIT

Re:Not So Environmentally Friendly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 07:25 · Score: 0

I don't understand why wave power is touted as an eco-friendly power source.

Because it's a pie in the sky technology. Rest assured that if it ever looked like going into large-scale use the Greens would be whining about it post haste.

If the Greens REALLY cared about the "environment" they'd be pushing nuclear power. The fact that they aren't shows that the majority of them are just using environmental issues as a cover for their real belief: irrational hatred of human beings and all their works.
Re:Not So Environmentally Friendly by nfras · 2002-05-15 11:29 · Score: 1

If it were only that simple. Nuclear waste takes many thousands of years to decay. In the case of some isotopes it takes millions. Siberia has some of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet. Not only that but the Siberian forest contains (some estimate) half of the world's conifers (currently a great big fire is burning over 54,000 hectares).
I agree that coastal areas are fragile, but so is every other environment on earth. Burying nuclear waste is just (no pun intended) sweeping the problem under the carpet. It is simply letting another generation deal with our problem. What happens if climate changes cause the emlting of much of the permafrost and you suddently find that the waste is now in the water table? Nah, don't like nukes, it has a habit of going wrong. Chernobyl anyone?

I heard of a nice idea about 10 years or more ago. NASA wanted to take a very large coil into orbit. Passing wire through a magnetic field creates electricity. Using the earth's magnetic field and a low orbit it is theoretically possible to produce lots of electricity with little environmental impact (except the fuel used to ferry the stuff back and forth). I never heard what the studies said about the feasability but I like the idea.

--
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Re:Not So Environmentally Friendly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 16:40 · Score: 0

Nuclear waste takes many thousands of years to decay.

No, it doesn't. After a couple of hundred years it's no more radioactive than the rocks from which it came.

In the case of some isotopes it takes millions.

The longer the half-life the LESS RADIOACTIVE, dammit! WHY doesn't anyone know this?

Non-radioactive materials have an INFINITE half-life (never break down). Slightly radioactive materials have a LONG half-life (break down, and emit radiation, very slowly). Highly radioative materials have a SHORT half-life (break down, and emit radiation, rapidly).

Jeezus fucking Christ. Don't they teach ANYTHING in school science classes these days?

Chernobyl anyone?

A shitty, substandard Soviet design.

Nuclear power has been used in the United States for 50 years without a SINGLE fatality to a member of the general public. That's better than coal. Better than nuclear. And a HELLUVA lot better than hydro.
Re:Not So Environmentally Friendly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 16:44 · Score: 0

That's better than coal. Better than nuclear. And a HELLUVA lot better than hydro.

Make that "better than coal. Better than OIL. And a HELLUVA lot better than hydro."

bullshit!! by Anonymous+C0wherder · 2002-05-15 05:35 · Score: 1

There's no way to feasibally hold pure energy

Energon cubes! :P

Score -1, troll... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 05:47 · Score: 0

Yeesh...

Scary Stuff! by hugecrow · 2002-05-15 05:52 · Score: 1

I read somewhere (can't remmember the source) that if you use too much tidal energy, the moon will slowly crash into the earth! and i do NOT want that to happen...

--
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.

Re:Scary Stuff! by Billy+the+Mountain · 2002-05-15 06:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I heard NASA already has a solution to this, they're going to attach solar powered wings to the moon. Moon Wings!

BTM

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.

Idiots! by Rick+the+Red · 2002-05-15 06:11 · Score: 2

Don't they realize that nothing is truely free? There is always a cost! In this case, the cost of tidal power generation is to drain energy out of the power source, namely the Moon. This will generate power for a small island off Scotland, but at the cost of slowing the Moon's orbit for the rest of us! The fools don't know what they're doing! They must be stopped or we're all doomed!

--
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.

Re:Idiots! by Manitcor · 2002-05-15 06:38 · Score: 1

Care to explain how it might affect the moons orbit?

Yes the pull of the moon has an affect on the oceans, however I have yet to see anything published that says that the innverse is true.

--
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
Re:Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 06:41 · Score: 0

Do you always need someone to explain the jokes, or just the lame ones?
Re:Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 06:47 · Score: 0

just the lame ones, wanted to see if someone would bite
Re:Idiots! by bugg · 2002-05-15 07:24 · Score: 2

The moon exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth. The Earth (waves included) exerts a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the mass of the Earth is not changing, nothing should be changed.
The inverse is *always* true when we're talking about forces in physics; equal and opposite reactions.

--
-bugg

Expensive now, perhaps by torklugnutz · 2002-05-15 06:45 · Score: 1

The point is, they are working on the implementation of this system now. This is called real-world research. At some point in the future, producing hydrogen WILL become cost effective. This project, and hundreds of others, will help give data on reliability of equipment, and storage issues. Not to mention the fact that they will already be set to take advantage of the cheaper sources of hydrogen, when they come into being.

In short, just because it's expensive now doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. By that reasoning, computers wouldn't have ever developed, as they were only marginally faster than a human working the same problems at first.

--
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.

Get off the Oil, Get off the Microsoft, by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 06:49 · Score: 0

Get off the Stepford Administration.

... and the world will be a better place ..
for you...
for me...
ahhhhhh....

hydrogen is explosive by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 07:41 · Score: 0

hydrogen is explosive it reacts very violently
the entire island might explode

Re: a better record than coal... by airdrummer · 2002-05-15 08:13 · Score: 1

and nothing exposes the ignorance of the anti-nuke morons like the fact that coal mining releases more radiation into the environment in 1 year than all the nuke power plants ever have...

I surely hope this catches on by Meowharishi · 2002-05-15 09:17 · Score: 1

Hydrogen is, imho, the only hope we have for the survival of western civilization. We simply cannot continue to rely on third world countries to supply our energy needs. 9/11's will continue until we become self sufficient and stop "exploiting" the third world nations. (sarcasm in that)

--
mje0w!!!1!

yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-15 12:30 · Score: 0

This event, if it takes a whole decade, will be shadowed by the fact that Toyota plans to have a hydrogen fuel cell SUV available in Japan and the US by 2010.

Sorry Scotland.

test by Cyno · 2002-05-15 12:40 · Score: 1

I like the thought of converting sunlight into energy using solar panels on roof tops. And maybe combine that with this wave energy and run all our vehicles off electric/hydrogen engines. You could have a small hydrogen generators in everyone's car that just hooks into their home. I think electromagnetic energy is far more powerful than what you get from combusting oxygen and hydrogen, but hydrogen engines might be more efficient. We just got to think up new efficient ways to transport electricity and ourselves.
For vehicles I like the idea of storing mechanical energy, like a flywheel braking system. If we had a few flywheels to store the energy when we stop we could use those flywheels for quick acceleration and the eletric/hydrogen engine to keep the vehicle in motion. Combining that with solar panels and wind power generators on the car and the thing should be able to run for at least few hundred miles with a tank of water.
But if you think about it. All the energy on Earth came from the Sun. It seems only natural that we learn how to harness that energy to coexist with our environment: a hunk of rock with lots of water orbitting a giant ball emitting photons. Using nonrenewable living or dead organisms for energy is almost parasitic and certainly not a permanent solution. Lets hurry up and find a permanent one, because I'd really like to get on with my work.

Slashdot Mirror

World's First Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Island

212 comments