(02-22-2010 11:23 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  All right fossil fuels boil water to make steam to turn a turbine that spins a coiled magnet to make electricity. Here we pump oxygen across a filter to generate elctricity. We use Hydrogen in the process. We get hydrogen from fossil fuels but we could concievably get the hydrogen from water. The Bloom boxes can use any hydrocarbon (Nina, Pinta, Santa Marie). I want to use water. (Boeing 747)

You're not understanding the process. Leslie Stahl doesn't either, so she didn't ask the right questions. I'm guessing that the difference between you and Leslie Stahl is that you really want to know, whereas she just wants to make a political statement.

Look up SOFC's on Wikipedia, the explanation isn't bad. The SOFC doesn't eliminate the need for hydriocarbon fuel, it just uses it in a way that produces fewer harmful emissions. It's good for the environment, but it doesn't save or replace any oil (OK, you may use NGL's instead of oil, but you're still drilling baby, drilling).

Look at the way you are understanding the process and ask yourself, where is the energy source?

It's not the hydrogen that you are getting from the fossil fuel, it's the energy release. Getting hydrogen from water doesn't provide energy, it uses it. Go back to your basics of chemical reactions. That's what's wrong with hydrogen cars; it takes too much energy to isolate the hydrogen--that and the Hindenburg effect.

My read of the hydrogen-as-fuel is that you could use some "renewable" process - wind, solar, etc. - to extract hydrogen that you could store later to use as fuel in the bloom boxes. That solves a fundamental problem with those technologies - they don't produce energy consistently over time. But, the scalability and price issues with those technologies still exist. IMHO, the Hindenburg effect is trivial - given that you would store and consume it at the same location, I don't think it's a difficult problem to solve.

(02-22-2010 12:00 PM)I45owl Wrote:  My read of the hydrogen-as-fuel is that you could use some "renewable" process - wind, solar, etc. - to extract hydrogen that you could store later to use as fuel in the bloom boxes. That solves a fundamental problem with those technologies - they don't produce energy consistently over time. But, the scalability and price issues with those technologies still exist. IMHO, the Hindenburg effect is trivial - given that you would store and consume it at the same location, I don't think it's a difficult problem to solve.

If you store and consume it at the same location, then the Hindenburg problem is minimal--wouldn't go so far as to say trivial.

If you start using hydrogen to run cars, and you've got careless people or DUI people pulling into the stop-and-rob to fill up at 2 am, it may not remain minimal.

I'm intrigued by the Green Freedom program at Los Alamos. They believe they can strip CO2 and hydrogen right out of the air and turn it back into fuel that can be used again. They claim to be able to strip 95% of the CO2 out of the air in a single pass. Their ultimate goal is to produce a carbon-neutral energy system. It seems to have a lot of promise.

I was confusing fuel cells. Here's a brief run down.

The fuel cell will compete with many other energy­ conversion devices, including the gas turbine in your city's power plant, the gasoline engine in your car and the battery in your laptop. Combustion engines like the turbine and the gasoline engine burn fuels and use the pressure created by the expansion of the gases to do mechanical work. Batteries convert chemical energy back into electrical energy when needed. Fuel cells should do both tasks more efficiently.

A fuel cell provides a DC (direct current) voltage that can be used to power motors, lights or any number of electrical appliances.


There are several different types of fuel cells, each using a different chemistry. Fuel cells are usually classified by their operating temperature and the type of electrolyte they use. Some types of fuel cells work well for use in stationary power generation plants. Others may be useful for small portable applications or for powering cars. The main types of fuel cells include:

Polymer exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC)
The Department of Energy (DOE) is focusing on the PEMFC as the most likely candidate for transportation applications. The PEMFC has a high power density and a relatively low operating temperature (ranging from 60 to 80 degrees Celsius, or 140 to 176 degrees Fahrenheit). The low operating temperature means that it doesn't take very long for the fuel cell to warm up and begin generating electricity. We?ll take a closer look at the PEMFC in the next section.

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
These fuel cells are best suited for large-scale stationary power generators that could provide electricity for factories or towns. This type of fuel cell operates at very high temperatures (between 700 and 1,000 degrees Celsius). This high temperature makes reliability a problem, because parts of the fuel cell can break down after cycling on and off repeatedly. However, solid oxide fuel cells are very stable when in continuous use. In fact, the SOFC has demonstrated the longest operating life of any fuel cell under certain operating conditions. The high temperature also has an advantage: the steam produced by the fuel cell can be channeled into turbines to generate more electricity. This process is called co-generation of heat and power (CHP) and it improves the overall efficiency of the system.

Alkaline fuel cell (AFC)
This is one of the oldest designs for fuel cells; the United States space program has used them since the 1960s. The AFC is very susceptible to contamination, so it requires pure hydrogen and oxygen. It is also very expensive, so this type of fuel cell is unlikely to be commercialized.

Molten-carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)
Like the SOFC, these fuel cells are also best suited for large stationary power generators. They operate at 600 degrees Celsius, so they can generate steam that can be used to generate more power. They have a lower operating temperature than solid oxide fuel cells, which means they don't need such exotic materials. This makes the design a little less expensive.

Phosphoric-acid fuel cell (PAFC)
The phosphoric-acid fuel cell has potential for use in small stationary power-generation systems. It operates at a higher temperature than polymer exchange membrane fuel cells, so it has a longer warm-up time. This makes it unsuitable for use in cars.

Direct-methanol fuel cell (DMFC)
Methanol fuel cells are comparable to a PEMFC in regards to operating temperature, but are not as efficient. Also, the DMFC requires a relatively large amount of platinum to act as a catalyst, which makes these fuel cells expensive.


I know I read where they can power a laptop with pumping water to prime a pump. Every thirty minutes you have to reprime. It's been too long but I'm going to research it more.

(02-22-2010 12:14 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  I'm intrigued by the Green Freedom program at Los Alamos. They believe they can strip CO2 and hydrogen right out of the air and turn it back into fuel that can be used again. They claim to be able to strip 95% of the CO2 out of the air in a single pass. Their ultimate goal is to produce a carbon-neutral energy system. It seems to have a lot of promise.

Green Freedom is a very appealing concept.

(02-22-2010 12:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was confusing fuel cells. Here's a brief run down.
The fuel cell will compete with many other energy­ conversion devices, including the gas turbine in your city's power plant, the gasoline engine in your car and the battery in your laptop. Combustion engines like the turbine and the gasoline engine burn fuels and use the pressure created by the expansion of the gases to do mechanical work. Batteries convert chemical energy back into electrical energy when needed. Fuel cells should do both tasks more efficiently.
A fuel cell provides a DC (direct current) voltage that can be used to power motors, lights or any number of electrical appliances.
There are several different types of fuel cells, each using a different chemistry. Fuel cells are usually classified by their operating temperature and the type of electrolyte they use. Some types of fuel cells work well for use in stationary power generation plants. Others may be useful for small portable applications or for powering cars. The main types of fuel cells include:
Polymer exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC)
The Department of Energy (DOE) is focusing on the PEMFC as the most likely candidate for transportation applications. The PEMFC has a high power density and a relatively low operating temperature (ranging from 60 to 80 degrees Celsius, or 140 to 176 degrees Fahrenheit). The low operating temperature means that it doesn't take very long for the fuel cell to warm up and begin generating electricity. We?ll take a closer look at the PEMFC in the next section.
Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
These fuel cells are best suited for large-scale stationary power generators that could provide electricity for factories or towns. This type of fuel cell operates at very high temperatures (between 700 and 1,000 degrees Celsius). This high temperature makes reliability a problem, because parts of the fuel cell can break down after cycling on and off repeatedly. However, solid oxide fuel cells are very stable when in continuous use. In fact, the SOFC has demonstrated the longest operating life of any fuel cell under certain operating conditions. The high temperature also has an advantage: the steam produced by the fuel cell can be channeled into turbines to generate more electricity. This process is called co-generation of heat and power (CHP) and it improves the overall efficiency of the system.
Alkaline fuel cell (AFC)
This is one of the oldest designs for fuel cells; the United States space program has used them since the 1960s. The AFC is very susceptible to contamination, so it requires pure hydrogen and oxygen. It is also very expensive, so this type of fuel cell is unlikely to be commercialized.
Molten-carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)
Like the SOFC, these fuel cells are also best suited for large stationary power generators. They operate at 600 degrees Celsius, so they can generate steam that can be used to generate more power. They have a lower operating temperature than solid oxide fuel cells, which means they don't need such exotic materials. This makes the design a little less expensive.
Phosphoric-acid fuel cell (PAFC)
The phosphoric-acid fuel cell has potential for use in small stationary power-generation systems. It operates at a higher temperature than polymer exchange membrane fuel cells, so it has a longer warm-up time. This makes it unsuitable for use in cars.
Direct-methanol fuel cell (DMFC)
Methanol fuel cells are comparable to a PEMFC in regards to operating temperature, but are not as efficient. Also, the DMFC requires a relatively large amount of platinum to act as a catalyst, which makes these fuel cells expensive.
I know I read where they can power a laptop with pumping water to prime a pump. Every thirty minutes you have to reprime. It's been too long but I'm going to research it more.

The Bloom Box is just an SOFC, with the characteristics indicated.

The running water deal is a physical, not chemical process. It's like siphoning, you get the water going and it will flow for a while, get it to turn a turbine and you generate a modest amount of power. No large-scale application, and no mobile application.

One fuel cell application is powering submarines. They are very quiet (not a lot of moving parts) and they minimize emissions (so they can stay underwater). Swedes brought one over to San Diego for training, and it hid from the US fleet for months. Of course, our nuke sub lobby killed building any of them for us.

(02-22-2010 08:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 08:12 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 07:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Anybody else catch the 60 minutes piece on the fuel cells? Very interesting and they are working right now at Google, EBay, some Hospitals etc. We are going to start seeing some fruits of our labor post 5.00 a gallon gasoline. An insane amount of money went into alternatives a couple of years ago. This is why we need to tax fossil fuels. They are planning on a mass media event Wednesday. You will hear about the boxes this week. Two boxes that fit in both of your hands would power the average American home.

If the technology is more efficient than fossil fuels, then why do you need to tax them?

Because Mach likes tyranny.

Exactly. Mach wants to tax an industry, to fund another industry, that'll essentially put the taxed industry out of business. I wonder if Mach has a Che shirt?

(02-22-2010 12:14 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  I'm intrigued by the Green Freedom program at Los Alamos. They believe they can strip CO2 and hydrogen right out of the air and turn it back into fuel that can be used again. They claim to be able to strip 95% of the CO2 out of the air in a single pass. Their ultimate goal is to produce a carbon-neutral energy system. It seems to have a lot of promise.

I think the goal of those type of systems is to sit outside industrial plants. But, I agree that they are a pretty interesting area to both address "fossil" fuel supply and atmospheric CO2 - at least locally.

(02-22-2010 01:36 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 08:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 08:12 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 07:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Anybody else catch the 60 minutes piece on the fuel cells? Very interesting and they are working right now at Google, EBay, some Hospitals etc. We are going to start seeing some fruits of our labor post 5.00 a gallon gasoline. An insane amount of money went into alternatives a couple of years ago. This is why we need to tax fossil fuels. They are planning on a mass media event Wednesday. You will hear about the boxes this week. Two boxes that fit in both of your hands would power the average American home.

If the technology is more efficient than fossil fuels, then why do you need to tax them?

Because Mach likes tyranny.

Exactly. Mach wants to tax an industry, to fund another industry, that'll essentially put the taxed industry out of business. I wonder if Mach has a Che shirt?

Mack has no direction, basicly he just wants whatever is new. He likes going from the frying pan to the fire.

Mach wants to tax an industry, to fund another industry, that'll essentially put the taxed industry out of business. I wonder if Mach has a Che shirt?

So taxing said industy to pay for it coming on to the market place is taxing it out of existence. Only in your messed up world does that make remote sense. Why are Americans paying to keep the Straits of Hormuz open? Why are we there? Answer that........ If we are there to keep the spigots open why not tax it to pay for it? The true cost of a barrel of oil should be paid for at the pump. This would make alternatives more competitive. Stick the Che shirt where the sun doesn't shine.

Mack has no direction, basicly he just wants whatever is new. He likes going from the frying pan to the fire.

"Mack" wants to take us off a 19th century fuel. He wants our country to find an alternative fuel. Yep guilty as charged.

(02-22-2010 03:10 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mach wants to tax an industry, to fund another industry, that'll essentially put the taxed industry out of business. I wonder if Mach has a Che shirt?

So taxing said industy to pay for it coming on to the market place is taxing it out of existence. Only in your messed up world does that make remote sense. Why are Americans paying to keep the Straits of Hormuz open? Why are we there? Answer that........ If we are there to keep the spigots open why not tax it to pay for it? The true cost of a barrel of oil should be paid for at the pump. This would make alternatives more competitive. Stick the Che shirt where the sun doesn't shine.

Mack has no direction, basicly he just wants whatever is new. He likes going from the frying pan to the fire.

What you're proposing it essentially the same thing as raising taxes on Ford to pay for the research and development of the Camaro, Mustang's competitor.

Quote:Why are Americans paying to keep the Straits of Hormuz open? Why are we there?

....because you green maggots won't let us utilize our own resources.

....because you green maggots won't let us utilize our own resources.


This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. You are either TOO STUPID to realize it or keep forgetting it. Let me say this to you one more time.

Wait.......... Are you focused? Try to remember what I am about to tell you. ready

WE ARE USING MORE OIL THAN WE EVER COULD POSSIBLY EXTRACT!

Did that clear it up for you cupcake?

(02-22-2010 03:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  ....because you green maggots won't let us utilize our own resources.


This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. You are either TOO STUPID to realize it or keep forgetting it. Let me say this to you one more time.

Wait.......... Are you focused? Try to remember what I am about to tell you. ready

WE ARE USING MORE OIL THAN WE EVER COULD POSSIBLY EXTRACT!

Did that clear it up for you cupcake?

...and this has been proven how? Have we drilled in the red zones? If so, um, when? All you're stating is conjecture at this point, something you commonly do.

...waiting...

What you're proposing it essentially the same thing as raising taxes on Ford to pay for the research and development of the Camaro, Mustang's competitor.


Let's take this real slow. Let's say the cost of producing the chassis on the Mustang was given to Ford by the American Tax Payer, but the cost of the chasis on the Camaro had to be paid for by Chevy. Taxing Ford............... to show ...................( pay attention here this is the main point)

to show the true cost of the chassis is what I am propsoing.

That help buttercup?

(02-22-2010 03:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  ....because you green maggots won't let us utilize our own resources.


This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. You are either TOO STUPID to realize it or keep forgetting it. Let me say this to you one more time.

Wait.......... Are you focused? Try to remember what I am about to tell you. ready

WE ARE USING MORE OIL THAN WE EVER COULD POSSIBLY EXTRACT!

Did that clear it up for you cupcake?

How exactly does that work?

Cars don't run on deficit spending.

Besides, haven't we been hearing this mantra for some decades now?

Have we drilled in the red zones? If so, um, when? All you're stating is conjecture at this point, something you commonly do.


They are called Geological Surveys.

(02-22-2010 03:29 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you're proposing it essentially the same thing as raising taxes on Ford to pay for the research and development of the Camaro, Mustang's competitor.


Let's take this real slow. Let's say the cost of producing the chassis on the Mustang was given to Ford by the American Tax Payer, but the cost of the chasis on the Camaro had to be paid for by Chevy. Taxing Ford............... to show ...................( pay attention here this is the main point)

to show the true cost of the chassis is what I am propsoing.

That help buttercup?

Ahh, so you're saying the government has built the oil platforms, built the research vessels, etc.? Saying the government subsidizes Exxon?

Yeah, right. You have no point.

(02-22-2010 03:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Have we drilled in the red zones? If so, um, when? All you're stating is conjecture at this point, something you commonly do.


They are called Geological Surveys.

...and they determined how much oil was in the ground how? Exactly, they didn't.