[Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 218

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

I'm a big fan of the hydrogen economy for several reasons - many of
which you casually nay-say.

Solar-electric production is inefficient - but getting remarkably less
so. Some serious money is going into fab facilities for solar cells
and substantial research has already pushed up solar cell
efficiencies. The total available roof-top acerage in sun-friendly
areas is quite vast. And the energy isn't "local". That is energy
produced in Phoenix doesn't have to STAY in Phoenix - we have this
thing called the electrical grid that is very efficient at pushing
power all over including places where there's a lot of water.

Gas turbines are interesting but they suffer from all sorts of
difficulties in cars. Naval vessels seldom require the kind of sprint
capacity that a car has to produce. Without intermediate
energy-storage to provide for sprint capacity a turbine-powered car is
gonna be a DOG. You only have to wait for a turbo-charger to spool up
in a conventional engine to experience this. And efficient naval
electric propulsion is tied to high temperature (relatively)
superconductors. I don't see many people wanting to top off on liquid
nitrogen in addition to fuel.

For the United State we need first EFFICIENCY for our existing
gasoline-based transportation system and we need to divorce ourselves
from the petro-chemical engines we've been reliant on for so long. The
environment world-wide is already suffering and it's going to get
worse.

Unfortunately I don't see and US government having the courage or
insight to guide the auto makers into changing.

I don't believe I'll see even scientific break-even in fusion plant in
my life-time let alone a full-scale fusion plant. I'm still a friend
of fission plants - the new technologies are vastly safer than designs
of 30-40 years ago - but I think nuclear in the United States is dead.
People are afraid of anything technical and the anti-nuclear forces
shout LOUDLY even if they are shouting FUD most of the time (at best.)

Probably this summer we'll take advantage of the new California
incentive and put solar panels on as much of our roof as we can. We'd
do the same in Arizona but it's not cost effective down there yet -
Arizona LIVES in a myth about water, energy and pollution that is
frightening. It's like everything is free even though they continue to
be in a serious drought that, if historical trends are to be
considered, might only be the beginning of a 50 year-long drought or
longer.

Adam Bridge

On 1/30/06, Mattheis, William G CIV <william.mattheis@navy.mil> wrote:
> Re:
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:31 PM, Dennis Painter wrote:
>
> > Economically viable energy sources may be here sooner than Detroit
> > thinks.
> > http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
> >
>
> I often wonder where we will obtain the hydrogen required to power a fuel 
> cell.  The amount of energy in the universe is fixed.  We can only convert 
> it from one form to another.  What will we convert to hydrogen?  Water via 
> electrolysis seems to be a good answer, but that requires the input of 
> substantial amout of electrical power into the conversion process - - none 
> of which are 100% efficient (neither is the operation of a fuel cell).  So 
> we will lose energy in the hydrogen generation process, and we wiil lose 
> more in the conversion of hydrogen and oxyen to water and electricity in 
> the fuel cell - - very clean at the tail pipe, but a little short on 
> efficiency with two losses to consider.  We can have a very clean "system" 
> if we convert sunlight to generate hydrogen via hydrolysis to power the 
> fuel cell, but solar cells require lots of space, are extremely expensive 
> and extremely inefficient - - especially on cloudy days.  Oh, and you need 
> lots of water for local generatio!
>  n.  So, while Phoenix, AZ would be an ideal locale to power solar cells, 
> water may be more scarce that oil as a source of power for cars.  Then 
> there is the issue of the energy that must be expended just to bottle 
> (under very high pressures) the hydrogen gas generated - - opps, there 
> goes some more energy expended.  Then, of course, we have to compressing 
> air to collect and bottle the oxygen needed by a fuel cell.  That will 
> also require significant amounts of energy to power - - where will that 
> power come from??  Oh, last best number I heard for solar cell conversion 
> efficiency was about 18%, and that is in the latest state of the art 
> stuff.  I'd like to see the math that suggests that fuel cells are/can be 
> cost competitive with other sources in the near (5 to 10 years) term.
>
> I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but while I can see the fuel 
> cell as one means of reducing car generated pollutants, it will not reduce 
> our overall use of energy - - just change the form in which we use it.  Of 
> course, if we can find a way to do a massive amount of hydrogen generation 
> other than the two viable (sort of) processes I am aware of (hydrolysis 
> and H+ ion stripping from existing hydrocarbons - - there is that oil and 
> natural gas thing again), then we will have a very clean AND EFFICIENT way 
> to do motor transportation.
>
> My guess is that we could actually save more oil and reduce pollution 
> faster if we just did the work required to make internal combustion 
> engines a lot more efficient.  That just requires better heat management 
> technologies like ceramic or ceramic coated combustion chambers/exhaust 
> management systems.  But then, that seems awfully hard when we could just 
> replace piston driven internal combustion engines with turbines that (1) 
> run on most anything that will burn, (2) do so with a lot fewer parts, (3) 
> have very few repairs, (4) are more efficient, and have (5) high operating 
> tempertures that help with exhaust issues (particularly unburned 
> hydrocarbons).  Chrysler prototyped such a car in the late 1950s/early 
> 1960s (ran 100 test cars around the US pretty successfully I believe - - 
> except for some exhaust heat problems like scorched paint on tailgating 
> cars I think) - - so it can be done.  Plus, the US Navy has clearly 
> demonstrated that jet turbine power ships can be higher effe!
>  ctive and efficient, and future improvements using a turbine to power an 
> electric drive system are on their way.  Gas turbines are also great 
> recyclers.  They will burn anything from used peanut oil to fingernail 
> polish.  They will burn waste solvents, alcohol made from excess grain 
> crops, used oil, l
>
> I guess the path we take depends on what we are trying to achieve, "save 
> oil" for the future, or have a cleaner environment by reducing the amount 
> of hydrocarbons we burn.  The bottom line is that there is no free lunch.  
> There is no such thing as "free energy."  We have to do "work" whether we 
> are freeing energy from sources where it is "latent" such as oil, coal, 
> hydorgen, etc., or converting it from one form, say sunlight, to another, 
> like electricity stored in a battery.  And, as far I know, that work, 
> i.e., every conversion process I am aware of, has issues related to 
> efficiency, environmental impacts or other costs to society.
>
> Of course, if we could just solve the problem of containing a fusion 
> reaction that we have spent zillions of dollars researching we will have 
> endless, non-poluting energy.  See, we have known the answer for a very 
> long time, we just haven't solved the technical problems yet.
>
> bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>