Well, since we are all already in a cynical mood about this. Think about how much more money it would cost for the government to launch and manage the satellites vs. a private company. Private companies always has to answer to the bottom line. Would you really want your tax dollars going to this? The debt from the Iraq war is a leading example of how the government really sees the bottom line as merely a starting point. And on top of that, it would still be the largest corporations who would lobby for control of the satellites. Think how much time and money would be spent on the sessions of congress dedicated to this. I mean, I see your point and I'm a little bit discouraged to look into my crystal ball and see the future where space is lined with flying garbage, but really some the alternatives discourage me more.
Well, conventionally, a fuel cell is merely the device that can utilize hydrogen to produce electricity. Fuel cells do not store hydrogen at all, they rely on a another device to store or produce the hydrogen. Typically, that will be a compressed gas or liquid H2 tank in the case of storage or a natural gas or methanol reformer in the case of production.
I agree that the article is a bit misleading. But the way I interpreted it, they are using the hydrogen produced by the bacteria "real-time" as opposed to storing it and then using it in a fuel cell. In other words, the produced hydrogen is being directly fed into a fuel cell to produce electricity.
Now if one was to scale up this technology for a wastewater plant, the hydrogen could be used immediately in a fuel cell to produce grid power, but could also be stored as power demand decreases throughout the day. This stored hydrogren could then be used to produce more grid power upon demand or delivered to vehicles powered by fuel cells.
Yes, think of arrays of solar panels powering a hydrogen electolyzer. Solar cells may not be able to power vehicles effectively (yet), nor do they like to travel to places like Seattle where the sun never comes out, but hydrogen can through fuel cells. Yes, I know the argument about round-trip efficiencies for making hyrogen. But if they are now making solar cells 50% efficient compared to the 6% efficient ones made by priciple researcher Russell Ohl in 1941, I believe the hygrogen making process will follow suit.
Just think of a field of solar panels and wind turbines quietly making hydrogen to meet the needs of our transporation sector in place of large oil pumps guarded by troops in a politically unstable part of world.
I've always found it interesting to look at this from the bio/anatomy perspective. Even with all the analog-to-digtal and digital-to-analog conversions, you still end up with a digital signal. For it's not the vibrations of your brain that you interpret, rather the neuro-electrical signals fed to your brain from your inner-ear.
Now if we could just keep it digital all the way to the inner-ear...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since we are all already in a cynical mood about this. Think about how much more money it would cost for the government to launch and manage the satellites vs. a private company. Private companies always has to answer to the bottom line. Would you really want your tax dollars going to this? The debt from the Iraq war is a leading example of how the government really sees the bottom line as merely a starting point. And on top of that, it would still be the largest corporations who would lobby for control of the satellites. Think how much time and money would be spent on the sessions of congress dedicated to this. I mean, I see your point and I'm a little bit discouraged to look into my crystal ball and see the future where space is lined with flying garbage, but really some the alternatives discourage me more.
Well, conventionally, a fuel cell is merely the device that can utilize hydrogen to produce electricity. Fuel cells do not store hydrogen at all, they rely on a another device to store or produce the hydrogen. Typically, that will be a compressed gas or liquid H2 tank in the case of storage or a natural gas or methanol reformer in the case of production. I agree that the article is a bit misleading. But the way I interpreted it, they are using the hydrogen produced by the bacteria "real-time" as opposed to storing it and then using it in a fuel cell. In other words, the produced hydrogen is being directly fed into a fuel cell to produce electricity. Now if one was to scale up this technology for a wastewater plant, the hydrogen could be used immediately in a fuel cell to produce grid power, but could also be stored as power demand decreases throughout the day. This stored hydrogren could then be used to produce more grid power upon demand or delivered to vehicles powered by fuel cells.
Yes, think of arrays of solar panels powering a hydrogen electolyzer. Solar cells may not be able to power vehicles effectively (yet), nor do they like to travel to places like Seattle where the sun never comes out, but hydrogen can through fuel cells. Yes, I know the argument about round-trip efficiencies for making hyrogen. But if they are now making solar cells 50% efficient compared to the 6% efficient ones made by priciple researcher Russell Ohl in 1941, I believe the hygrogen making process will follow suit. Just think of a field of solar panels and wind turbines quietly making hydrogen to meet the needs of our transporation sector in place of large oil pumps guarded by troops in a politically unstable part of world.
I've always found it interesting to look at this from the bio/anatomy perspective. Even with all the analog-to-digtal and digital-to-analog conversions, you still end up with a digital signal. For it's not the vibrations of your brain that you interpret, rather the neuro-electrical signals fed to your brain from your inner-ear.
Now if we could just keep it digital all the way to the inner-ear...