Slashdot Mirror
Getting Serious About Fuel Cells
electroniceric writes "For those of us who moonlight as politics wonks as well as tech nerds, you may have noticed posts (1,2) in the Washington Monthly's blog pointing to interesting articles about the business community's new take on climate change, world oil supply predictions as well as a fascinating article about lower-cost ethanol together with a new fuel cell technology that can use impure hydrogen. Are we really about to turn a corner in global climate change response? Is this all vapor and breathless journalism about a world-saving new technology, or is it perhaps a brilliant investment strategy? Nobody knows (or claims to know) better than Slashdot..."
Personally I've always leaned towards Biodiesel.
Why? Well, quite simply, using biodiesel not only are you saving money and the environment, but you boost the economy via the agriculture industry!
From what I hear they are using it a lot in the midwest states, but I really would like to see some mainstream biodiesel technology.
Fuel cells, meh, they have their place. But accident safety with a hydrogen bomb under your hood is an interesting diversion from the subject in itself...
I have heard that Washington University in Saint Louis is getting quite close to making a useable ethanol fuel cell that could potentially power a laptop for a month. I really just think that alcohol based fuel cells make more sense; ethanol can be easily made from corn, and we make enough of that to have our government pay farmers to not grow it for economic reasons. I say that ethanol fuel cells will change the world more dramatically than the internet, and that is a pretty powerful statement to make.
don't understand why everyone is so down about fuel cells.
yes, pure hydrogen is hard/expensive to produce. but the next generation of fuel cells can use methane (or ethanol) for a source of fuel. ie, plug the fuel cell into the back end of a cow- suddenly wisconsin will be known for more than it's cheese.
for some reason, some are thinking fuel cells are going to replace gasoline engines in vechicles. well, ok. but what you really want to do is replace all the coal and oil burning power plants w/ fuel cells. so instead of acid rain and tons of greenhouse gases, you get H2O out, which you could use to water crops or drink. given that China seems to be building coal burning power plants as fast as they can, doesn't that sound like a good idea?
ok, fine, i might be biased. i am working on the next design of fuel cells (in particular solid oxide fuel cells- SOFC). but, still, the sooner we get to a place where producing energy is less harmful to the planet, i think we should. hell, we must.
I was also going to recommend biodiesel for the cars. As for the trolly's, that is easy. Where I come from, 87% of electricity comes from hydroelectric. Sure, it isn't feasible across the whole country, but that is why we have nuclear :)
Andrew
Every oil major has subsidiaries whose whole purpose is to bring hydrogen to market. There are plenty of well connected oil men in these companies whose careers are toast if hydrogen doesn't come online. Do you really think that Shell or Exxon care whether the profit comes from oil burned in ICE or hydrogen consumed in fuel cells? Get real, the bottom line for these guys is keeping the bonuses and stock options rolling in no matter what.
Two of your websites refer to the kooky "studies", from the oil experts of the world: modern russia!
Wanna invest in empty, poor, russian steppes!? SURE YOU DO!
Read the nice article, American. Ignore the lack of Russian development of said oil for the last 50-80 years (which would easily have fixed many of their huge energy woes). Digging deeper was what they were good at! Someone's apparently selling us sheep oil.
Abiotic oil is not possible from imaginary methane underground. Methane is impossible to bond with unless you oxidize it (oxygen) or rip away its hydrogens in some other way (without letting them re-join the carbon) and it's very light (rises) and its very very likely *not* sitting in rock solution, as an unoxidized carbon source near the pure silica mantle.
Oil is not "cooled" methane or propane. Geesh! what a rip! You have to cook up long molecules from more complex carbon soup. Gases occur because they couldn't get cooked! The natural gas we pump out has risen above the oil because they were formed around the same time and don't slowly go from one form to the other. You'd never find them togther if fluid temperature changed one into the other.
Besides, the proportion of carbon in the unruly methane gas is much smaller than the goo that was buried under tar pits and other sedimentary formations. Methane is hydrogen-rich and carbon-poor compared to coal and crude oil. Ergo: one don't magically all change to the other over eons.
Simply said, we (made of carbon) are the scum of the earth: carbon forms and compounds of *every* type are light and do not flow anywhere but up when buried deep. Even when compressed over eons with silica compounds, they still always come from the surface. (Obviously shows in coal, more common than oil!) So there's no magic springs of texas tea going to appear from 10000 miles deep oil wells. All the oil that was formed 60 million years ago has risen as high as it can, or sprung out already as tar sands.
Okay. Here's a simple test: do endless methane flares spew out of deep-fault (or any) volcanos? Nice pictures in Nat'l Geographic? NO!
Methane was in the atmosphere like every other gaseous carbon compound when the earth was formed. Gooey carbon chains were formed when that carbon in methane stuck to rocks in the form of algae and stuff that ate it. Carbon is light stuff!
(sigh) End lecture.
Kids these days!
Believing anything if a buck ad from unproven science in spam tells them to believe Uncle Bush and the Happy Endless Drillers,
(hint: who are losing investment $$ due to no new reserves.)
[Crawls back into hut and straps on tinfoil hat
to prevent the TV from eating his brain too.]
Nietzsche is dead - God