Fuel Cells in the news

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

...

No, that's the artificial world that subsidies and incentives create as opposed to the actual costs of comparative competing technologies.

--

[George]

as it is not the first school in the

Not sure of what homework I need to do. I am very familiar with the various "alternative" energy ideas.

Lets say you are the person in charge of writing the justification for the proposed fuel cell installation at the school. The only condition is that you need to do the project without the government going into the pockets of others to pay for it. In other words it has to have financial merit like any other project that you would be paying for. You would need to demonstrate how it will save money over the life cycle of the equipment. Do you think you could do it?

[trader4]

And you're source for that claim would be? Still think the $6.5mil fuel cell facility, paid for by the taxpayers as part of the Obama stimulus that hasn't done much stimulating, is a swell idea? These fuel cells typically reduce energy costs by 20 to 40%. They run on NG, not moon beams, so you still need to put fuel in them. You think shelling out $6.5 mil to cut energy bills by 20 to 40% at two schools makes any economic sense? The only real sense it makes is for the recipient to cash in on the gravy train while they hand out money that the govt has to borrow.

[George]

it is not the first school in the

Exactly, I have had to look deeply into the "alternate energy" space for my job and pretty much none of it can stand on its own merit. So the government needs to pull lots of money out of the pockets of other folks to subsidize it.

[George]

I will bet that you can't find one that hasn't been subsidized and it has nothing to do with if the installation is private. I was just in a friends office this afternoon and we were discussing how much money the government pulled out of peoples pockets to subsidize an "alternative energy" project they are doing for a private company.

No figuring required.

[George]

And you can't use natural gas directly since only hydrogen can only be used in fuel cells. Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4) so you need to strip off the carbon atom. That is typically done by a process called reforming.

But if someone else is picking up the tab fuel cells are certainly a wonderful thing..

[Stormin Mormon]

In the modern USA, there are plenty things I don't call wonderful. Which others pay for.

[Stormin Mormon]

Obama has ridden that horse to a lot of success. So, it works on some folks. Just look how his TARP, stimulus, and government tax and spend have improved the economy! I heard on the radio today that they are standing by with more stimulus if the economy doesn't improve rapidly. I'm sure so glad that unemployment didn't go over 8% like they promised it wouldn't Someone pass the ipecac, I can't take any more.

[AZ Nomad]

it depends on the fuel cell.

[George]

Yes, it incorporates the reforming into the same package as the fuel cell but as far as I know no one has yet brought anything to market.

[salty]

It's the real world as it exists. Subsidies and incentives are the reality. They are an inescapable factor. Just as when you figure out your household budget, you have to allow for taxes being removed from your income and property taxes. That's reality.

[trader4]

I think a lot of the nonsense, like handing out $6.5mil of the US taxpayer's money for a fuel cell project for two schools, will come to an end in January, when the new Congress takes over. And if doesn't end then, it will when the US goes broke, like Greece, which won't be too much longer. Fortunately there are still enough people around with their eyes open who don't want to be serfs of the state.

The govt could also pay one guy to dig a hole and the other guy to fill it in. That doesn't make it an efficient use of resources. And that's the problem. When you rely on govt to decide what and who to subsidize it rarely leads to an efficient use of resources. Occasionally you get something good that comes out of it. But on the whole, if you factor in all the waste, it's a disaster. And seeing the clowns that are running the country broke, I'm amazed that anyone would put their trust into them to decide what businesses to support.

[HeyBub]

Heh!

It would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply the power needs of California, about 50 GW.

Oh, it's doable - but everybody in Los Angeles would be living in the shade.

[trader4]

I believe his point is not one that is relevant to technology advancement. His point is that the total available energy from the sun is such that even with a highly efficient solar cell to convert all the energy to electricity, it would still take an enormous array. I haven't verified the calculations, but I've seen the point made before. It's like saying there is only X BTUS of energy in a pound of coal that can be extracted regarded of how good the efficiency is.

[Jim Yanik]

Smitty Two wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Oh? where does the FUEL come from?

Only if Comrade Obama succeeds in geting Carbon Control enacted,and keeps the nuclear power industry stifled.

"doable",but not PRACTICAL in large scale. Or it's "doable" with a drastically lowered lifestyle.

no matter what,solar still has the limitation of only generating power during daylight hours,with reduced output during inclement weather and cloudy periods. Also needs a lot of water to keep the panels/mirrors clean.

OTOH, nice,safe,clean,reliable nuclear runs 24/7/365,and provides lots of good paying jobs.

While solar panels are and will be made overseas.

[Jim Yanik]

Smitty Two wrote in news: [e-mail]:

if it were that close to "economically viable"(or even just "viable"),tax dollars would not be necessary for their R&D.

he's not listening....

DREAM on.... you also overlook the CLEANING of those rooftop solar cells. Or storm damage,bird droppings,etc.

spreading democracy means that with many other nations similar to ours,there will be far fewer conflicts and less human misery around the globe. free,democratic nations are peaceful nations.

Besides,no matter how you generate electricity,it's not going to power your cars,trucks,or airplanes. Those will still depend on oil,for the foreseeable future.

Of course,there's DOMESTIC oil production and refining,if we can get past the "progressives".

[HeyBub]

Why not subsidize the quest for perpetual motion? Blood from turnips? I know, gold from lead!

The total energy of the sun falling on the earth (not reflected or absorbed by the water cycle) is about 1.4Kw/m^2 at the ecliptic.

Not all of this is usable by a solar collector (ultraviolet, X-rays, etc.).

I won't bore you with the math (maths is hard), but adjusting for day/night, latitude, clouds, and other disruptions, you'll get down to an average of about 250Watts/meter^2. Then you have to allow for efficiency of the collector, conversion loss from DC to AC, etc.

You'd be lucky to get to 150W/m^2. For 3,000 sq ft of shingles, you'll reap about 3kw.

The ONLY way to improve this number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

[HeyBub]

Energy "independence" is a myth, because oil is fungible.

Suppose we could develop enough oil to supply our domestic needs at, say, $50/bbl.

Somewhere in the world, somebody will be able to deliver oil at $49/bbl. Our domestic users will quit buying US oil and get the foreign stuff, just like they do now. There is no shortage of domestic oil; there is only a shortage of CHEAP domestic oil.

Now inasmuch as most of the oil we import is used in transportation, windmills, nuclear power, and other stationary forms of power generation won't work until we develop motors that can use stored electrical energy and the infrastructure to supply it. No form of energy is currently available to replace petroleum.

[snotty]

You can't really be THIS stupid, can you? I'm surprised you remember to breathe.

[snotty]

And only an idiot would insist on a single solution as the only possible approach.