Bush's Fuel Cell initiative.

Clone Sergeant · Post by **Clone Sergeant** » 2003-01-28 11:05pm

During his state of the union address Shrub touted the benefits of fuel cells. Are they really practical or is he just blowing smoke up america's ass(not to say he doesn't do that half the time anyway

)?

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-01-28 11:09pm

They are getting very close to being practical. Some of the newest test cars with them perform quite well and the system has been shrunk considerably over the last few years.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-28 11:11pm

Buy stock in electrical power producers if fuel cells go on to become popular. A hydrogen fuel cell is a glorified battery.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-01-28 11:24pm

A hydrogen fuel cell is a glorified battery.

True. Its just a system that uses hydrogen instead of chemical reactions to power electric motors. But I would think its alot better than just a battery because it can constantly be reused more than a recharable battery and doesn't utilize harmfull chemicals.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-28 11:24pm

Yes, and we can make electrical power from coal, precious coal.........

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-01-28 11:28pm

I found it suspicious that a son of an oil dynasty would fund such an idea.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-28 11:47pm

I found it suspicious that a son of an oil dynasty would fund such an idea.

Perhaps the oil companies aren't supporting him enough?

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-01-29 01:49am

Baron Mordo wrote:I found it suspicious that a son of an oil dynasty would fund such an idea.

Who knows what stipulations are attached to that research money.

For all we know in order to receive that money you have to suppress results for "x" number of years. With Bush your guess is as good as mine.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-29 07:06am

I found it suspicious that a son of an oil dynasty would fund such an idea.

Bushy may have experance in the Oil Biz but as they say, that area is pretty much owned by one group or another

Fuel cells however...

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-29 08:15am

With any luck, Bush sees the amount of control foreign oil has on the U.S. economy and he is trying to solve that problem (rather than make some political play). I'll tell you this, I'm tried of paying a buck fifty for a gallon of 87 octane (4 years ago I got it for under 70 cents!).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-29 08:55am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:With any luck, Bush sees the amount of control foreign oil has on the U.S. economy and he is trying to solve that problem (rather than make some political play). I'll tell you this, I'm tried of paying a buck fifty for a gallon of 87 octane (4 years ago I got it for under 70 cents!).

Lol, come to the UK and try and not get pissed at petrol prices. America is a wetdream for most motorists. Funny thing when Mineral Water is more expensive than oil nowadays.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-29 10:32am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:With any luck, Bush sees the amount of control foreign oil has on the U.S. economy and he is trying to solve that problem (rather than make some political play). I'll tell you this, I'm tried of paying a buck fifty for a gallon of 87 octane (4 years ago I got it for under 70 cents!).

You're tired? You must be joking...

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-29 05:50pm

Developing fuel cells is not that simple. Not only do you need to create cars that run off Hydrogen, but you also must build the enourmous distrubution system to get H2 to the vehicles. You need plants to process the H2, pipelines to deliever it across the country, and stations where cars can fill up. Switching from gas to H2 will be an absolute huge undertaking, and will probably cost billions, but inevetabliy it is the way to go.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-29 06:39pm

if hydrogen becomes a common fuel then the countries with the largest coastlines will be the major producers. Why? Duh, water is 66% hydrogen. More coast = more electrolysis refineries and available water.

Heres a question, is hydrogen capable of running a combustion engine (of whatever design) safely, cheaply, and efficiently? Cooling is obviously a cost because to contain H2 in a good quantity liquifaction is necessary (unless you dont care about having big high pressure tanks and highly volatile gas). I imagine the dangers would be similar to propane, however a propane tank wont explode if its contents is exposed to direct sunlight, whereas a liquid hydrogen tank would (the contrast in densities is far too great). Burying the tanks would be good, but heating from the ground might burst them, so you'd need constant cooling. Also, a thermos-like container would be advantageous.

But is that worth the energy density of hydrogen burning??

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-29 06:59pm

kojikun wrote:if hydrogen becomes a common fuel then the countries with the largest coastlines will be the major producers. Why? Duh, water is 66% hydrogen. More coast = more electrolysis refineries and available water.

It's not that simple. It takes energy to do the seperation. That energy has to come from some where, ie. nuclear, fossil fuel, hydro, solar, etc. Then, once the electrolysis is done, the H2 has to be shipped to the consumer, which requires pipes, pump stations, ships, etc.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-29 07:50pm

Isn't H2 extraction from H20 a net loss?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-29 08:08pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Isn't H2 extraction from H20 a net loss?

Yes, it takes energy to seperate hydrogen from water. You gain the energy back when you combine the two.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-29 09:01pm

Baron Mordo wrote:I found it suspicious that a son of an oil dynasty would fund such an idea.

It's called "let's fuck the Saudis".

Or, possibly, "Let's take away John Kerry's campaign platform."

Porbably both.

And converting to a hydrogen infrastructure means jobs. Lots and lots and lots of them, plus brand new industries to invest in. And petroleum is still needed for plastics, pharmaceuticals, high grade fuels that can't be replaced by hydrogen, lubricants, etc. Not to mention new power plant construction and upgraded electrical infrastructure to produce all this hydrogen. The pollution benefits go without saying. This is worth the investment.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-29 11:03pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Isn't H2 extraction from H20 a net loss?
Yes, it takes energy to seperate hydrogen from water. You gain the energy back when you combine the two.

Well I meant the efficiency issues were bad to the point where we end up using more energy in electrolysis then in combusting to hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell.

Artanis · Post by **Artanis** » 2003-01-29 11:57pm

is hydrogen capable of running a combustion engine (of whatever design) safely, cheaply, and efficiently?

The article that I read in Autoweek describing GM's (iirc) new Fuel Cell concept car brought this issue up in an interview with a GM exec. He said that basically, Hydrogen is SAFER than Gasoline, but that the public still feels it's dangerous, so they're going out of their way to make tank-like fuel cells. We're talking testing them by dropping them at full pressure from a crane 8 stories up. Assuming the guy isn't lying and the article is correct, that makes a GM fuel cell...well..I'd like to see a typical gas tank survive an 8-story drop!

On a second note, I'm not certain that Hydrogen would be used in combustion, per se, the way that gasoline is. I THINK that the motor itself would actually be electric, but my memory on that matter is a bit too hazy to say for sure.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-30 12:00am

I like it, but I don't see why the government has to fund it. Profitable technologies will fund themselves.

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-01-30 01:43am

Durran Korr wrote:I like it, but I don't see why the government has to fund it. Profitable technologies will fund themselves.

As noted earlier, it's a big "Screw You Guys" to the collective middle east. Bush doesn't want to be dependent on foreign oil, especially when a large majority of the people supplying that oil don't exactly like us too much...

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-01-30 01:49am

Artanis wrote:
is hydrogen capable of running a combustion engine (of whatever design) safely, cheaply, and efficiently?
The article that I read in Autoweek describing GM's (iirc) new Fuel Cell concept car brought this issue up in an interview with a GM exec. He said that basically, Hydrogen is SAFER than Gasoline, but that the public still feels it's dangerous, so they're going out of their way to make tank-like fuel cells. We're talking testing them by dropping them at full pressure from a crane 8 stories up. Assuming the guy isn't lying and the article is correct, that makes a GM fuel cell...well..I'd like to see a typical gas tank survive an 8-story drop!

On a second note, I'm not certain that Hydrogen would be used in combustion, per se, the way that gasoline is. I THINK that the motor itself would actually be electric, but my memory on that matter is a bit too hazy to say for sure.

Yes, the motor would be electric. As Wong said earlier, a fuel-cell is a glorified battery. We take hydrogen and oxygen, react 'em together, and produce electricity. Just like an ordinary alkaline battery produces electricity through strange chemical reactions. And hydrogen is reasonably safe, compared to plain petrol. Petrol vapors tend to gather in one place in still air. Hydrogen gas disperses pretty quickly, on the account of it being lighter than air. However, the stuff is very, very flammable. Petrol is liquid at room temperature (though it turns to vapor fairly quickly.) Hydrogen has to be kept either very cold, or under high pressure. Breach a hydrogen tank, and the stuff vents out as hydrogen gas.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-30 02:12am

It falls into the category of lets hold the Saudis by the balls for cheaper oil by threatening to develope a tech that will punt their asses right back into the desert where they started. If its for real the benefits would be enormous in terms of job creation, and severing the Wests dependence on petrochemical fuel. Besides there a thousand more useful things to do with hydrocarbons rather than crudly(and inefficiently) burn them as fuel.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-30 02:35am

Did you know that you get deductions on your taxes if you own a alternative fuel vehicle, hybrid, or electric car ? I just noticed it on Turbo tax today.