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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: atticus4paws who wrote (4099)	12/8/2007 8:15:16 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

I agree, the electric car is the obvious replacement for the petroleum car, for many reasons. The infrastructure is there for to recharge the electric car already, it is safer, less expensive to operate, etc. The cost of building out a hydrogen delivery system will end the hydrogen car dream. Electricity is already being delivered just about everywhere, we just need to upgrade the infrastructure for the heavier demand. Next generation electric batteries are not far off now that will deliver 300 mile ranges and fast reacharges, then the electric car will be a real viable alternative.

To: atticus4paws who wrote (4099)	12/8/2007 1:58:15 PM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

Message 22041122

To: atticus4paws who wrote (4099)	12/10/2007 3:38:28 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

Electric cars don't need liquid hydrogen fuel cells. They can run on pollution free electric, like the Chevy Volt. Makes perfect sense to me. We can get away from hydrogen fuel cells and go straight to electric cars with no reliance on fuel. The biggest problem to me is how we are going to generate all the liquid hydrogen, but it sure looks like they are going to develop a hydrogen fuel cell car in 2008 from several makers. I would be more excited to add solar to my existing electric power system in my house to add more capacity for car fuel. We have unlimited supplies of coal, shale, natural gas, solar, nuclear, and other feedstocks for electric. We only have one feedstock for most cars - crude oil and gasoline. The more electric we can add for cars, the less gasoline we can consume.

To: atticus4paws who wrote (4099)	12/11/2007 11:22:33 AM
From: Fishfinder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

I agree!! I think electric and (Methane CNG, LNG) are much better solutions. You can easily re-fuel both of these systems from home. NG is best as fuel stations are easily put in place with Existing NG lines. Scott

To: atticus4paws who wrote (4099)	6/23/2008 3:24:05 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

Portable fuel that does not pollute is the only reason to use hydrogen. That is if you all out of other portable fuels and/or pollution is the overwhelming driver. The main problem with hydrogen is where do you get it, and how much do you lose making and storing it...? Once you get it, it makes fuels cells work at about 65% efficiency or ICE or Stirling work very well. I could see a society bereft of fuel, making hydrogen for porta-fuels from wind or geotherm, but the efficiency is very bad by direct electrical "cracking" 'lectrolitikally from wawa. Better to heat the water and once it is ionized then convert it to H2. Making H2 and then using it in a fuel cell reduces your overall efficiency, but it still better than running a diesel. You can reform other hydrocarbons in an engine, make lectricity in the bargain, and then use the reformed fuel in a cell. Average efficiency is about 45%. Of course you have to start with a HC fuel. Very soon mankind will be bereft of practical portable liquid fuels, so hydrogen will then become a consideration. No one is thinking of KOH for fuel cells and we have lots of that. These works right now at high efficiency. fctec.com EC<:-}