Marine Fuel Cells

[Paul Zetlmaier]

Hey Fred;

Every time I drive up I5 it burns me to see all the Nuclear plants abandoned.. All politics! If the French and Japanese and the US Navy can handle this technology we sure can.How about the current tax break on large PUs and SUVs? 100 o/o writeoff; but it has to be abig hog! No breaks for normal cars. How can the feds even talk about a shortage when this is going on?You noted NOVA piece; remember the one on Hydrogen? Turns out it is much safer than gasoline. Politics!! As a former city employee you got to be as disgusted as I am.

 

[Fred Ficarra]

Paul, that tax break expired last week.

Damn, and I planed on buying a Hummer!

 

[ian19147]

One more reason to sail

I occurs to me that wind power (sailing) is free. Just one more reason to sail (as if I needed another one!)

 

[Bil Thomas]

not really free

I used to think sailing was free,but...... You may not think you are paying but just wait until you buy new sails. The differnce between stink potters and sailboats is that a stinkpot pays every time they go out. Sailors pay for the fuel catcher (sails) upfront.Even though we pay upfront it is the only way to go!!!

 

[Augie Byllott]

Nuclear Power

p323ms wrote:"My biggest problem with nuclear is the waste. Where do you put something so that it will be safe for 100,000 + years??? Just look at the problems now imagine if a large proportion of our enery came from nuclear."Response:I understand that at present, 20% of all US electricity is produced at nuclear fueled power plants. Other than burying the waste deep underground, I am unaware of any other problems. If 100% of electricity was produced at nuclear facilities, what would a fivefold increase in problems mean?To my knowledge, even including the Three Mile Island accident, there has never been a single US fatality that resulted from the nuclear production of electricity.On the other hand, it is a fact that millions of US lives have ended prematurely as a result of respiratory diseases brought on or exacerbated by breathing air polluted by the burning of fossil fuel.I am surprised that there has not been more of an outcry from environmentally sensitive folks.

 

[Stu Jackson]

To paraphrase Augie

Someone earlier said to get more fossil fuel we'd "have to fight for it.""On the other hand, it is a fact that LOTS of US lives have ended prematurely as a result of unnecessary wars fought to gain a small additional amount of fossil fuel that could have been negotiated financially with no loss of life."

 

[Fred Ficarra]

But Stu!

You know what George Carlin says! That oil is controled by brown people and we have all these bombs to use up so we can buy newer, better bombs. George is right, it's the American way.

 

[Jung]

Fred, this time I agreed with you

100%.

 

[Scott]

George Carlin?

Isn't he one of the more astute philosophers of our day? I think he also said that Man is on earth because God wanted plastic. He (God) didn't know how to make it so He created Man. Man would surely invent it!He (Carlin) also said that there is no need to fear that Man will destroy Earth because when Earth has had enough of Man, Earth will shrug Man off like a bad cold. Maybe he's right. In any event, Fred, I don't mean to complain about you because I think you're a good guy. But it drives me insane when people throw out that ridiculous term "corporate greed" to oversimplify the "root" of all our problems. Corporations are nothing more than an association of human beings that have a common economic interest. Do you mean to imply that there are greedy people? I've been burned by bad investments (World Com, naming one) as result of people in important places making felonious decisions. I don't view the oil companies that way. In fact, when I think they are going to be profitable, I think it's a good thing to invest some money there. I think these corporations serve us pretty well and provide an opportunity for us to share in their profit.I think it should be noted that the exploitation of natural resources is the basis for ALL our basic needs and wealth. In fact our very survival is dependant upon it. It's a little hypocritical for anyone to benefit from the wealth of this society (which enables us to float around in our boats peacefully) and complain about those that seem to be more consumptive. Basically, we are all equally to blame for what we percieve to be excesses.Are there alternative energy sources, such as some of the ideas discussed here, that are truly better? I believe that the market place ultimately encourages development and the means to economically exploit a resource. Corrupt forces can't hold back good ideas in the long run. Polyanna? Maybe ... I'd rather be optimistic about such things.

 

[Fred Ficarra]

Scott, it seems to me,,,,

and I'm using my mother as an example, most people 'investing' in the stock market are hoping to buy cheap and sell high. They are looking for penny stocks that will turn into the next Microsoft. Investing has little to do with it.P.S. Corporate America recognizes that and takes advantage. Worldcom? How about Enron? I could go on,,,,,

 

[Gord May]

Oil-Free Future ...

We live in a therapeutic culture, and the function of our government, our media, and all the things we buy is to make us feel good about ourselves. We want to be, and be seen as being, positive, upbeat, and ”good”. The fossil fuel lobby denies global warming. The politicians deny the influence of oil on foreign policy. The media deny American responsibility for the situation in Iraq. Military acronyms deny the reality of the brutality and killing.Environmental crises, military occupations (Although, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, the invasion of Iraq had "nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."), and the corporate control of democracy are not good things - and if we ever thought about them too much we'd probably have a collective breakdown. So we don't. But our lack of awareness, and of conscience, will come at a price.Americans are sitting on about 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world - and consume about 25 percent of all the oil that is produced. The average American (& Canadian) consumes more than twice the energy as does the average Japanese, more than 12 times the Chinese citizen, and more than 25 times the average man in India.Whatever the world’s oil reserves may be (estimated @ 1.1 Trillion Barrels*) - Oil is a finite resource - this is an indisputable fact. An energy transition away from oil is not just an option, at some point it is an inevitability. Renewable energy is also the route to our independence and self-determination. It breaks the power of those who control the oil reserves and gives new hope to those who do not, for even the poorest country is rich in sources of natural power. Energy can be a daunting topic, especially considering the cultural, ecological and economic scope of our dependence on finite resources. Energy is like water. It is a collective resource that everyone needs and uses. It should be produced and distributed in everyone's interest. We need a public energy plan that serves everyone, and doesn't mortgage our future to pollution and corporate greed.It is time to embrace an oil-free future and to break away from this cycle of dependency.*How much oil is left (reserves)?Precise figures for existing oil reserves do not exist. This is partly due to limitations in the technology used to estimate the size of underground oilfields, but also because companies and countries have an interest in exaggerating their so-called 'proven' (defined as 90% certain) reserves. For example, OPEC countries are allocated a production quota based on their proven reserves - it is therefore in their interest to exaggerate reserves in order to maximize production and income.At the end of 2003 there were estimated to be over 1.1 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves around the globe. But these reserves are very unevenly distributed. Saudi Arabia holds about a quarter of these oil reserves, while Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi account for another nearly 40% between them. Outside of the Middle East, the largest reserves are in U.S.A. (9.2%), Venezuela (6.8%), and Russia (6%).

 

[p323ms]

Scott the market place isn't a God

The market place may do some things but it isn't an invisable hand that steers society in the right direction. Market forces almost put elephants extinct. As there were fewer and fewer elephants the price of ivory made it more and more profitable to poach. Also markets don't work blindly they are controlled by people. The popularity of the SUV is a direct result of very good marketing!!!! This very good marketing could just as easily been applied to high gas milage cars but the profit per unit sold favors the SUV. An elightened government could push corporate greed away from the SUV. It's ironic that the best government money can buy is not very enlightened. To me it seems very strange that in an area like Las Vegas that solar hot water heaters are not standard on all new homes. Instead with an outside air temperature of 115 a typical new house is running it's air conditioner to stay cool while the water heater is in the interior space putting out heat!!!! Now it costs a lot to retrofit for solar but the cost woould be insignificant in new home construction. Again using LV as an example almost every house could be rigged for solar energy production using the exisitng energy grids. But no, in a perfect situation for solar market forces push for the most profit for the few by using steam plants to generate electricity. If 1% of the money used for nuclear was applied to solar solar would be a dominant enery source in many places. But of course you can't destroy enemies using solar. Enlightened government could mandate and facilitate a much more environmentally friendly country. But since we have the best government that money can buy laws will continue to facilitate corporate profit over social well being. I believe that an enlightened government would put the well being of our country above corporate profit. Ironically once the change is made corporations should make as much money but it would be different corporations.Tom

 

[Garry @ S/V TASHTEGO]

Oil and Money

Well I'm a bit surprised by the turn this thread has taken but here's my two cents worth. If you want to see the arguements over when oil production will peak have a look at the web site below. Ken Deffeyes wrote an excellent book following up on the research started by M. King Hubbard in the fifties. I won't make Ken's case for him but I can say that I have had a long career as an academic earth scientist and I know that Ken has an outstanding reputation in the field.http://www.hubbertpeak.com/deffeyes/Given that introduction, it is clear that we have many years of oil remaining in the ground. The question is not really how much oil there is but what price we will have to pay for it. Crude has recently gone from prices in the teens to prices in the forties (fifties for a while) and is unlikely to ever go back to the teens. Oil demand is increasing at an exponential rate but production will probably peak in a few years or maybe decades and then, when all the easy oil is extracted, fall. At that point the price of oil will rise until demand is once again equal to production. When this happens we (or our children) will be amazed that we burned this stuff just to keep warm. It will be so valuable for things like chemical feedstocks and pharmaceutical products that there will be no possibility for the use of petroleum for heating, power production or motor fuel.Where do we go then? Well, Augie is right about nuclear power. We will go there eventually - if not be choice then by necessity. One of the un-recognized problems is that our nuclear waste policies and our non-proliferation policies are in direct conflict. Congress and the administration have solved the problem by their usual solution - inaction.If fuel reprocessing technology were allowed to proceed we could drastically reduce the nuclear waste problem by a process called nuclear burning in which long half life waste products add a neutron in a reactor and become short half life wastes which are more radioactive but decay away much sooner. Unfortunately reprocessing also separates plutonium (produced by neutron capture on U238) which can be made into bombs. Now it is apparent from the cases of India and Pakistan that our non-proliferation policies are not an overwhelming success but there appears to be no intention to modify them in order to improve the nuclear waste disposal process. Such is political life (I'm not an academic anymore, I work for the Federal Government).Nuclear has its problems and you will note that my preference was for the bio-fuel Sterling engine. Keep sailing it uses a lot less fuel.

 

[Garry @ S/V TASHTEGO]

Other Fuels

Looking back over the thread, I haven't answered a couple of questions sent my way. The first reactor was built in a squash court at the University of Chicago. The plutonium production facility was indeed at Hanford (still is). There is another source of fossil fuel that I didn't mention - coal. Coal burning has the same problems as oil burning from the CO2 point of view and it requires sophisticated clean up of the sulfur emitted. But there's a lot of coal out there. One technology which may make a comeback is the coversion of coal to methanol (wood alcohol) using steam (note also that originally city gas was made from coal using steam and was a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen). This would allow easy clean up of the sulfur. And methanol burning enternal combustion engines have been in place for many years. All Indy style cars run on methanol. A decade and more ago the cost of energy in coal based methanol was around twice the price of gasoline but, as oil supplies peak, methanol from coal may become the motor fuel of choice for automobiles and even aircraft. Note that the specific energy (joules per kilogram) of methanol is only about half that of gasoline so that fuel loads will go up and tankage requirements will probably double. On the other hand its octane rating (resistance to knock) is about 120. I wonder what a mixture of bio-diesel and methanol would burn like!

 

[p323ms]

Go to Kentucky or West Virginia

If you want to see the price that is paid for coal!!!! They recently had a boulder roll off of a mountain and kill a sleeping child. Flying over that area you will see miles and miles of mountains with the tops removed!!! The land is often left unstable and incapable of supporting vegetation. Mined land reclamation is seen as a plot to deprive miners of God given rights. Global warming is real!!! All fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Coal also contains mercury which is released upon burning. This is the main source of mercury in your tuna fish sandwich. I actually wrote my masters thesis on coal gasification waste water. It is really nasy stuff. While you are in WV look at the streams draining coal mining areas. Many are lifeless due to acid runoff and siltation. China has even more coal than the USA. If the USA and China decide to burn coal it will be bad!!!!! There are no easy solutions to providing 6,500,000,000,000 people with a high standard of living. Hell a significant proportion of those people are more worried about eating than the color of their new SUV. I think that a big attraction to solar and wind is that it might be a way to drag many poor people into the modern world without as much environmental degradation. Biofuels are great except when you cut down all of the trees and promote desertification. But a solar/wind/battery power supply that might be found on a sailboat might provide all of the energy needs of a family.  People have the ability to shape the world. We can strip the plane bare and leave it polluted or we can design a sustainable society.

 

[Tom S]

How Much Oil Does the world consume in a year?

Just wondering ? (That'll tell us approximately how many years left - without conservation of course)I guess someday it'll be back to Wooden Boats and hemp ropes. HEY Look at the bright side, us sailors are way ahead of the game and probably should be considered futuristic and well ahead of our time

 

[Tom S]

"Keep sailing it uses a lot less fuel. "

garry, One question though. How much fossil fuel and Oil Byproducts are used to build a typical 35foot Fiberglass sailboat with sails and synthetic lines, etc?I read an argument somewhere that said having a new Fiberglass sailboat as environmentally sound (taken as a whole) as people sailing them would think. I guess buying a "good 'ole boat" might be the best environmentally sound choice

 

[Garry @ S/V TASHTEGO]

A little more

Well, another track for the thread. Lets face it there are no polyester or epoxy trees out there. Your boat and mine are probably made from petroleum. Even the glass fiber is made by melting sand using power or heat from fossil fuels and the aluminum in our spars is refined with electricity generated mostly from fossil fuels. Tom is right. The only environmentally sound boats are made from wood taken from managed forests and fastened with wooden pegs with wooden masts, hemp rigging and linen or cotton sails. The world rate of oil consumption PER PERSON has remained constant at an average 4.47 barrels per capita between 1981 and 2001 but of course the world population is going up. Daily total world consumption was 112.8 million barrels per day in 2020 or about 41 billion barrels per year. For an abundance of statistics see the DoE web site at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/presentations/ieo2000/sld001.htmCoal mining is certainly an eyesore but new regulations on reclamation and control of acid waste make modern coal mining much less environmentally damaging. BUT it still makes a big hole in the ground even if it is eventually covered up and re-vegetated. Remember that to supply the electrical needs of Los Angeles would require paving the Mojave Desert with solar cells, shading all vegetation to oblivion and removing the entire ecosystem. And, as silicon valley has recently found out, making semiconductors (like solar cells) is a highly toxic business using an abundance of fine chemicals such as fluorine and toluene. I repeat:THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

 

[p323ms]

Every house a solar collector

The logical place to put solar cells is on roofs. There is no reason to move into "virgin" land. This would be a great thing for homeowners if the utility gives them a break on what they pay. Plus the panels would help shade the house and probably lower air conditioning costs.  Using economic theory this would be great for america even if it isn't the most cost effective. The reason being that much of the cost would be labor to build and maintain the cells. Labor means jobs!!!! So instead of taking money and sending it overseas we put the money into our economy!!!! These would be relatively skilled jobs and if we were to do it well we could sell products and technology overseas and make our country more wealthy. Every dollar that we send overseas is lost to americans in that we sell relatively little(look at our balance of trade). But money spent on American labor would recirculate within our economy making our country richer!!!! The beauty of oil is that it concentrates wealth among the few. The beauty of solar is that it spreads the wealth out to the public in general.  The sun doesn't shine 24/7 so we would have to have a way to store power. Something like the pump storage facility at Racoon mountain,TN there they pump water up to a lake when they have excess capcity and then use the water to generate electricity as needed. I'v e heard of plans to use compressed air the same way. I guess that advanced systems could generate hydrogen by splitting water and then selling the pure oxygen for other uses. The hydrogen could then be used to produce electricity as needed. The main ingredient that is needed is leaders that put the USA's best interests above corporate greed.Tom

 

[Jonathan]

Um... What was the question?

Yow! This sure is some exciting "give and take", but no one answered the original question.Does anyone know anything about a marine application for fuel cells? Answer yes or no, and keep the political grandstanding for another chat room.