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 : LL Knickerbocker(KNIC)/Pure Energy Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steven Messina,L.M.T. who wrote (705)	10/25/1997 5:59:00 AM
From: Ben Mackenzie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1028

There was news about a new fuel cell that's being developed which offers twice the gas mileage and reduced polution per the news report. What's good is that it runs on gasoline and biomass fuels. However, according to a friend who is knowledgable in such things, any fuel cell that uses any other fuel except pure hydrogen must first use a process that extracts hydrogen from gasoline (called a "reformer") that must also eliminate the leftover carbon in some form, usually CO2. Because gasoline is a fossil fuel, CO2 from gasoline continues to exacerbate our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions problem. This announcement on this fuel cell is considered a diversion by some from the coming embarassment at the Kyoto Climate Change Summit that the Clinton administration will take without a credible GHG mitigation (i.e. biomass) program. It's also curious that no mention was made of ERC's work with ethanol and other liquid fuels for fuel cells. This December, the Clinton administration will attend the Kyoto conference in Japan, during which the US proposal to harness GHG is expected to be announced. Gore, the "environmental" VP, is seen by many as entirely ineffective in this role and some say has his presidency bid at stake if the US fails to respond in a credible manner. Lately, there has been noticed a new DOE report touting cellulosic ethanol and biomass as the only real solution to GHG mitigation. The chemical, automotive, and petroleum industries would have us believe that any cap on CO2 emissions would throttle our economy, result in lost jobs, reduce our competitiveness, raise food prices, and so on. They carefully do not refer to biomass and renewable technologies...until this latest DOE report (can't think of the title, but the DOE site has the press release if you're interested.). The renewable fuel industry has been using its meager lobbying resources (compared to petrochem) to get the message to senators, Sec'y Energy Pena and our V.P. that companies like Arkenol and PEC can deliver the Sacramanto biorefinery (a technology in total compliance with GHG) in time for the Presidential elections in 2000. For Clinton to make this announcement at Kyoto would assuage all comers and put the US at the forefront of renewable technology, set the stage and gain the advantage in GHG response. But, as ex-Pres. Bush would say, "Not gonna happen." This GHG issue is seen as central to Gore's philosophy (basic premise for his book) and thus, a challenge to it is a challenge to our VP. Gore is being attacked by those who believe that if the GHG issue is killed, then Gore's chances are also killed in 2000. Our people tell us that there is support for renewables at these high levels, but too much other stuff is going on resulting in distractions. For more info on GHG, try "www.nrdc.org" for a paper that discusses the possible mechanisms and rates of change for climate change. Is the issue real? I personally believe that the data supports that something IS happening. I don't think we fully understand all of the mechanisms at work here, but also believe it prudent that we should continue to investigate, plan to mitigate, and seek out new technologies and solutions which always serve to advance our capabilities in the long run. Finally, the electric car is not a solution. My friend has talked to power industry insiders that claim that our existing power infrastructure will be severely challenged if only 1 million electric vehicles make it to the streets. The power to charge its batteries has to come from somewhere, and that vast majority of power in the US (and the world) comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. New power plants will have to be built to support the power demand, resulting in more GHG. In terms of efficiency, why doesn't anyone look at the total system efficiency of mining and transporting the fuel (using 30% eff. or less internal combustion engines), combusting it in an open thermal cycle for the generation of steam (80% max eff.), using the steam to turn a generator for power (95% eff.?), sending the power down transmission lines (2% losses or more) and finally into storage batteries for use in a 98% efficient motor. And they say this makes sense? Sorry, my sarcasm is coming through.