Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Energy Conversion Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (6361)	7/25/2001 1:47:23 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8393

Thanks for the article on metallic "fuel cells", even though it is full of distortions and misinformation. First off, it is a stretch to call these zinc and aluminum batteries fuel cells. " When the aluminum plates in the stack are depleted (or any time before that, if desired), the cell is refueled by simply replacing them." or with the zinc cells.... "The "spent" fuel (zinc oxide), along with some of the liquid electrolyte solution, is pumped from the fuel cell into a vending-machine-sized refueling unit. At the same time, zinc pellets, about a millimeter across, are pumped into the fuel cell along with replacement liquid electrolyte from the same refueler." Well then, we might as well calls lead acid batteries fuel cells as well. All one needs to do when they run out of juice is to refuel them by removing the spent lead and acid and inserting new lead plates and fresh acid. There we have it, lead based fuel cells, and they don't need catalysts like PEM fuel cells. Nice try, but no cigar. Then there is the hydrogen misinformation.... "The problem with hydrogen is that, to be a practical fuel, it must be stored and transported under pressure." Bullshit. It can and has also been stored and transported in it's liquid state, cryogenically, under no pressure. But a far better solution is to safely store and transport it in hydrides. "That stipulation raises a host of convenience and safety issues, not the least of which is the need for government permits to store and transport it." If pressure storage was the only option, I would agree, but it's not. Bob Stemple of Energy Conversion Devices, routinely carries a bare "hockey puck" of hydride in his briefcase that safely holds more hydrogen than the equivalent volume of liquid hydrogen. I have held it in my hand myself. That is why Texaco has put millions into this company, and has a joint venture with ECD to produce hydride storage tanks. "One thing that everyone involved with alternative energy sources seems to agree on is that building a refueling or recharging infrastructure is a major--perhaps the major--difficulty to be overcome." I don't agree. Hydrogen can be safely transported in hydride tankers to "filling stations" when the need for large volumes are needed. Until then, hydrogen can be produced on site, on a "as needed" basis by electrolysing water off peak, and storing the hydrogen in a hydride tank at the station, or by producing the hydrogen on site by reforming it from natural gas delivered in existing pipelines. Both of these options eliminate the need for large trucks coming into our cities to deliver fuel, eliminating another source of pollution. The only major difficulty to overcome is retrograde thinking. Hydrogen fueling can be added to existing stations for a modest cost. I don't see any reason why it should be any more difficult than the stations that are now selling both propane and gasoline. "These experts point out that if gasoline were not already established as an irreplaceable part of modern life, it would probably never be approved as a fuel in today's regulatory environment. Hydrogen, although not nearly as dangerous, has scared people ever since the Hindenburg airship disaster more than half a century ago. When hydrogen leaks, the gas tends to rise and dissipate, unlike heavy gasoline vapors, which tend to gather in low places and wait for unsuspecting victims to touch them off." I agree that hydrogen is safer than gasoline. The hydrogen in the Hindenburg didn't blow up. The highly flammable skin burned off as can be easily seen in the film of the accident. You need to find some new hydrogen experts. Del