Bush's Fuel Cell initiative.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-01 05:36am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
The existing infrastructure servicing the IC engine works just fine. The (tens of) Billions not spent on developing this new infrastructure can be spent on other projects that will provide an even greater benefit to soceity then this "new technological infrastructure" would. Your arguement is basically a variation of the economic "broken-window" fallecy.

Your of course ignoring the tens of billions the US sends overseas in profit for oil exporters every year. Hydrogen for fuel cells can be gotten using electricity, and we can get electricity from coal and nuclear power very easily.

Coalmight still need to be imported, but you can find it in far more places then oil can be. And with such great supply the cost will remain low. If a nation jacks of the price or several start a cartel is easy to go elsewhere.

It also fucks over OPEC, and who doesnt want to do that?

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-01 08:02am

Blkbrry, if your argument was made successfully one hundred years ago, the horse and buggy would be the primary method of transportation today! The investment in the R&D and building the infrastructure would be a huge economic boon. We know the technology works, so its not like we're going to waste billions of dollars on something that will never be reality.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-01 12:20pm

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:Sir nitam, please read my posts, as that part about the catalytic reformulator, and WORKING PROTOTYPES, seemed to pass you by.
You know, the one near the top, with the numbers in it. Reread point 1, then 2.

How about the WORKING PROTOTYPES of fuel cells, moron? The point is to stop relying on gas, because it's so expensive. The nonsense thrown by those opposed to new research is really reaching..

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-01 12:32pm

SirNitram wrote:
Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:Sir nitam, please read my posts, as that part about the catalytic reformulator, and WORKING PROTOTYPES, seemed to pass you by.
You know, the one near the top, with the numbers in it. Reread point 1, then 2.
How about the WORKING PROTOTYPES of fuel cells, moron? The point is to stop relying on gas, because it's so expensive. The nonsense thrown by those opposed to new research is really reaching..

Forget prototypes. The German Type 212 submarine uses fuel cells for submerged power. And the boats are an operational weapons system.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2003-02-01 01:49pm

So how much more efficient will reformed gas vehicles be?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-01 01:58pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:Sir nitam, please read my posts, as that part about the catalytic reformulator, and WORKING PROTOTYPES, seemed to pass you by.
You know, the one near the top, with the numbers in it. Reread point 1, then 2.
How about the WORKING PROTOTYPES of fuel cells, moron? The point is to stop relying on gas, because it's so expensive. The nonsense thrown by those opposed to new research is really reaching..
Forget prototypes. The German Type 212 submarine uses fuel cells for submerged power. And the boats are an operational weapons system.

Referring to fuel cell car prototypes. Hell, the Apollo craft had working fuel cells.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-01 03:14pm

Blkbrry, if your argument was made successfully one hundred years ago, the horse and buggy would be the primary method of transportation today!

This is a horrible argument.....

1. The government didn't finance the development of the IC engine.

2. The government did not finance the devlopment neither did it provide funds to build gas stations

Knowing this we can say that your arguement is using the the hypothesis contrary to fact logical fallecy.

3. Your argument is also a false anology and in that the advantages the car has over the horse and buggy are many and easily recognizable, while in the IC engine and Fuel Cell both have disadvantages and advantages when compared with another. (Not the advantage/disadvantage list also changes f rom person to person in that some might see differently or dismiss various advantages/disadvantages)

The investment in the R&D and building the infrastructure would be a huge economic boon.

Like I said before, this arguement is a variation on the "broken window" economic fallecy. Since you obviously don't know what this is, (or you wouldn't have made this arguement) Ill explain it to you.

The Broken Window fallecy is also known as the beneifts of destruction fallecy. It states that when someone destroys something, they are in fact not criminals but rather public benefactors in that they stimulate employment in ever widening circles. Ex. A boy throws a stone threw a window, because of this the owner spends money on new glass from the glass maker, who spends money at the tailor, who buys meat from the butcher, etc. The problem with this senario is that had the boy never thrown the stone, then the owner would likely have bought something else, while still providing employment in ever widening circles, BESIDES a window. So the owner would have both a window and something else where as he only has a window now that the boy threw the stone.

For anyone who still dosen't get it, I'll explain it in near childlike terms. The investment in "R&D" and "new infrastructure" is money going towards a new window. However the old window, namely the IC engine and its infrastructre, work just fine and provides, for all practical purposes, the same beneifits and utility that the fuel cell would. So instead of having a window and something else (like say a cure for Cancer or HIV or fill in the blank) we'll have just a window.

We know the technology works, so its not like we're going to waste billions of dollars on something that will never be reality.

Just because something work's after you spend Billions of Dollars on it, it dosen't mean that it wasn't a waste of money. If I spend Billions of Dollars to develop a cell phone, that is in all mearsurable means inferior to, or even equal to a cell phone already on the market then I've wasted money, even though I did indeed manage to develope something.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-01 03:58pm

My god, you're dumb. The point is to get out of the stranglehold of oil and the main producers.. OPEC. Fuel Cells will match oil, and the fuel will likely be cheaper(It will, as Mike pointed out, still maintain an energy loss, but we all knew there's no such thing as a free lunch.)

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-01 03:59pm

3. Your argument is also a false anology and in that the advantages the car has over the horse and buggy are many and easily recognizable, while in the IC engine and Fuel Cell both have disadvantages and advantages when compared with another. (Not the advantage/disadvantage list also changes f rom person to person in that some might see differently or dismiss various advantages/disadvantages)

Hmm, pay a little more for a vehicle that runs off of fuel cells but has cheaper fuel with a more stable price of fuel than gas. This advantage is easily recognizable. Inform your consumers about this (consumers who are pissed off that the price of gas keeps going up) and you'll have a market. After a few years it will be very successful market.

Like I said before, this arguement is a variation on the "broken window" economic fallecy.

Actually, I am aware of this argument. However, politics has little to do with economic sense, especially where the average American is concerned. If a leader can say "doing this will create jobs", and converting the infrastructure most definitly would, then the public WILL go along with it.

Futhermore, converting to fuel cell technology would provide us with protection from OPEC. Even though OPEC only controls something like 40% of the oil production and less than 10% of US oil comes from the middle east(according to numbers I was given in Econ two years ago), OPEC still has the power to cause us serious harm. Look that oil problems from the seventies! Now if the public believes converting to fuel cells will protect them from foreigners damaging the economy and hurting their lives, they WILL go for it.

From a political and marketing stand point, your argument doesn't fly, even if it has a solid economic basis. From where I sit, politics and marketing almost always beats economics.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-01 04:36pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Blkbrry, if your argument was made successfully one hundred years ago, the horse and buggy would be the primary method of transportation today!
This is a horrible argument.....

1. The government didn't finance the development of the IC engine.

2. The government did not finance the devlopment neither did it provide funds to build gas stations

And the paved roads built themselves, right?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-01 06:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Blkbrry, if your argument was made successfully one hundred years ago, the horse and buggy would be the primary method of transportation today!
This is a horrible argument.....

1. The government didn't finance the development of the IC engine.

2. The government did not finance the devlopment neither did it provide funds to build gas stations
And the paved roads built themselves, right?

The roads weren't paved until the automobile was already well on its way to success. The Federal interstate highway program wasn't even started until the 50s under Eisenhower, I find it hard to attribute the sucess of the car and IC engine to Federal funding when the car was already a success well before the first large scale federal project for improving roads were started.

Besides, Arrow's point was that if it wasn't for the government intervention then we would all still be using horses and buggies, and I clearly pointed out that this wasn't the case.

SirNitram wrote:My god, you're dumb. The point is to get out of the stranglehold of oil and the main producers.. OPEC. Fuel Cells will match oil, and the fuel will likely be cheaper(It will, as Mike pointed out, still maintain an energy loss, but we all knew there's no such thing as a free lunch.)

First off, No I'm not and Fuck You......

Secondly, is getting out of the "stranglehold" OPEC has really worth the tens (possibly hundreds) of Billions of Dollars that we'll spend to just get a different version (possibly in many ways inferior to what we already have) of something we already have. Keep in mind that all this money could readily be put to use in other areas that would benefit mankind in other fields.

Hmm, pay a little more for a vehicle that runs off of fuel cells but has cheaper fuel with a more stable price of fuel than gas. This advantage is easily recognizable. Inform your consumers about this (consumers who are pissed off that the price of gas keeps going up) and you'll have a market. After a few years it will be very successful market.

It was my understanding that fuel cells would actually cost the economy MORE then the continued use gasoline when you factor in R&D, new intrastructure, and the higher cost of new vechiles which impliment this techonology.

Actually, I am aware of this argument. However, politics has little to do with economic sense, especially where the average American is concerned. If a leader can say "doing this will create jobs", and converting the infrastructure most definitly would, then the public WILL go along with it.

This detracts from my point how??? If something is wrong people agreeing with it won't make it right.

Futhermore, converting to fuel cell technology would provide us with protection from OPEC. Even though OPEC only controls something like 40% of the oil production and less than 10% of US oil comes from the middle east(according to numbers I was given in Econ two years ago), OPEC still has the power to cause us serious harm. Look that oil problems from the seventies! Now if the public believes converting to fuel cells will protect them from foreigners damaging the economy and hurting their lives, they WILL go for it.

There is an upper limit to which OPEC can raise prices before other, alternative fuel sources (shale oil, coal oil) become cost effective when compared to the price of OPEC gasoline. To prove that fuel cells are actually a worthwhile investment you have to show that all the costs of fuel cell development and implimentation will not exceed the costs of the continued use of Gasoline over a given time period. Keep in mind that in the coming years the actual upper limit of Gasoline prices is likely to be much less then the prices at which alternative fuel sources become viable. (Mainly because of the liekly seizure of the Iraqie Oil Fields by the US.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-02 01:17am

Hence the usefulness of Chrostas' hybrid system, which does not require a massive infrastructure outlay. It can be phased in gradually, using the existing infrastructure until internal combustion engines are displaced. At that point, alternative fuels can be more easily deployed due to the widespread prevalence of fuel cell-based cars. You are talking about a forklift-upgrade: rip out everything old and replace it with everything new. This is obviously impractical, and makes it easier for you to justify a "stand pat" attitude.

You aren't an accountant, by any chance, are you?

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-02 08:23am

There is an upper limit to which OPEC can raise prices before other, alternative fuel sources (shale oil, coal oil) become cost effective when compared to the price of OPEC gasoline. To prove that fuel cells are actually a worthwhile investment you have to show that all the costs of fuel cell development and implimentation will not exceed the costs of the continued use of Gasoline over a given time period. Keep in mind that in the coming years the actual upper limit of Gasoline prices is likely to be much less then the prices at which alternative fuel sources become viable. (Mainly because of the liekly seizure of the Iraqie Oil Fields by the US.)

While this true from a purely economic point of view, OPEC has raised prices very high in the past to hurt other countries. Yes, they have hurt themselves in the process, but they also did a tremendous amount of damage to other countries. My parents have told me many times about what gas rationing was like and how fuel costs took a big chunk out of their wallets. Furthermore, I doubt Bush can/will keep those oil fields without making one hell of an international stink.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-03 12:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:Hence the usefulness of Chrostas' hybrid system, which does not require a massive infrastructure outlay. It can be phased in gradually, using the existing infrastructure until internal combustion engines are displaced. At that point, alternative fuels can be more easily deployed due to the widespread prevalence of fuel cell-based cars. You are talking about a forklift-upgrade: rip out everything old and replace it with everything new. This is obviously impractical, and makes it easier for you to justify a "stand pat" attitude.

You aren't an accountant, by any chance, are you?

Actually, using the hybrid system would vastly increase the net cost of the switchover from IC to Fuel Cells. However, even if the net cost of using hybrid system was exactly the same as an immediate switchover the fact remains that by using the gradual implimentation policy all your doing is distrubuting the cost over a longer period of time. Though the gradual implementation policy is indeed more practical my argument that the money spent on this could be more productivly spent elsewhere remains valid.

Basically, switching over to fuel cells is like like switching your perfectly good "horse" for a "horse" of a different color. It's impossible to ignore the point that by keeping your perfectly good horse and spending your money elsewhere you can have a "horse" and something else that you other wise wouldnt be able to afford. By not replacing your perfectly good "horse" you are essentially raising your standard of living.

And no, Im not an accountant. I'm a 7th semester college student studying towards a History degree. I'm taking science courses on the side, and when I graduate from college Im planning on taking the MCAT and applying to medical school. And since I mentioned it I might as well take the opportunity to ask anyone if they have any advice for me in regards to this, Im always open to any useful information and help that people here can give.

Artanis · Post by **Artanis** » 2003-02-03 05:35pm

*scratches head*

Wouldn't it be more like switching from a perfectly good horse to a horse that doesn't poop all over your yard?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-02-03 11:06pm

No, Artanis, it is like changing from a horse than can only eat oats, to a horse that can eat any greens, and wood products as well.
The Beauty of my system, is you only need to change, or eliminate the catalytic reformulator, to change the fuel your car runs off of.
As of now, changing over to run on alcy, or propane, (from gas) requires changing the entire carburation system, and many of the seals and gaskets. Converting to diesel is a whole new motor.

And yes, this horse poops much less.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-02-03 11:16pm

PS, I am not just pulling this stuff out of my ass. I read the automotive trade magazines, (the ones most people don't even know about, like "warehouse-jobber distributor" "automotive aftermarket", "ASE tech bullitins" ect) and GM, Toyota, Daimler/Benz?Chrysler, and Honda have sunk BILLIONS into this R&D, and ALL have working roadworthy prototypes.
The incrimental phase in of hybrids, and fuel cell cars, is the ONLY plan they think worth spending the money on.
Hybrids, are only being used to refine the technology of electric motors as the wheel turning part.(and to boost fuel economy individualy and for their fleets.)

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-07 12:39am

The point of a horse is to get you from point A to point B. Bush is spending Billions of dollars to develop a horse that is equivelent in almost all areas to the horse we currently have.

I dare anyone who thinks that this is the best possible use of the tax money to go to a children's cancer ward, see how the children there are needlessly suffering, and then come out and say that we shouldn't spend the money on a cure for cancer because we need a new "horse". I mean who can honestly argue that its better to have just a horse, then a horse and a cure for Cancer.

This is only ONE example of what we could spend the BILLIONS of tax dollars that are going to be thrown away in this program. All in the name of getting a new gaget that will do EXACTLY the same thing as the cars we have now.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-07 12:57am

Except that the new gadget will pollute less, remove relience on foriegn oil, and probably drop fuel prices over the long run. You conveniently ignore these three facts whenever you repeat yourself, I wonder why? Oh yes, because you have no real rebuttal.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-07 01:20am

SirNitram wrote:Except that the new gadget will pollute less, remove relience on foriegn oil, and probably drop fuel prices over the long run. You conveniently ignore these three facts whenever you repeat yourself, I wonder why? Oh yes, because you have no real rebuttal.

1. There are other ways to remove reliance on foriegn oil other then sinking Billions of Dollars into fuel cells, for example we could start exploiting ANWAR or other KNOWN reserves of oil such as the ones off the coast of Florida and Calfornia.

2. There are ways to get lower fuel prices other then sinking Billions of Dollars into fuel cells. One of them is to repeal the gas taxes, which constitute approximatly 33% of the price of gas. Other ways to reduce the price of Gas include increasing the supply (see number 1) and reducing the reformulation regulations on gas. Reformulation increases the price of gas greatly at the trade off of only a very minor reduced rate of pollution.

3. Pollution is hardly a big problem from IC engines anyway, its not like were talking about a huge plant producing toxic waste here. The main products from combustion are water, CO and CO2; all of which are easily absorbed and used by planets and photosynthetic bacteria.

4. Your conviently ignoring the point that the purpose of a Car is to get you from point A to point B. The IC engine does this just as well as a fuel cell would.

5. Your also ignoring the benefits that NOT spending the money on fuel cells could bring. There are any number of scientific projects that could bring many more benefits, to the US and mankind in general, then this fuel cell program could. I would much rather have the money invested in developing a cure for Cancer or other medical/scientific areas simply because if this was done I could have a car to get me from point A to point B AND a Cure for Cancer/whatever the money is invested in. Has anyone actually dealt with this point, or are you all conviently ignoring it and just pointing out the same BS points?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-07 03:14am

1. There are other ways to remove reliance on foriegn oil other then sinking Billions of Dollars into fuel cells, for example we could start exploiting ANWAR or other KNOWN reserves of oil such as the ones off the coast of Florida and Calfornia.

ANWAR wont make a dent in our consumption. Drilling off the coast of California is politically unacceptable here so you can forget that. I cant speak for Florida. ( Wicked Pilot or Phongn? )

2. There are ways to get lower fuel prices other then sinking Billions of Dollars into fuel cells. One of them is to repeal the gas taxes, which constitute approximatly 33% of the price of gas. Other ways to reduce the price of Gas include increasing the supply (see number 1) and reducing the reformulation regulations on gas. Reformulation increases the price of gas greatly at the trade off of only a very minor reduced rate of pollution.

Gas taxes pay for the road structure, what is your replacement? A user toll?

3. Pollution is hardly a big problem from IC engines anyway, its not like were talking about a huge plant producing toxic waste here. The main products from combustion are water, CO and CO2; all of which are easily absorbed and used by planets and photosynthetic bacteria.

Primary source of CO2 emission is from vehicles. Modern cars are a lot cleaner than enviro's will admit but they exist in the hundreds of millions. The collective impact is very large.

4. Your conviently ignoring the point that the purpose of a Car is to get you from point A to point B. The IC engine does this just as well as a fuel cell would.

I agree.