In article , Steve Firth
writes
Steve wrote:
Well, the real point is that fuel cells will become a universal power
source - the military already use them in numbers,
You missed out the word "small" that should be inserted before
"numbers".
2,800 newly installed systems in 2003., raising the total to around
8,000 globally - AiB forecast 45,000 military systems by 2014.
and there will be fuelcell laptops on the market almost certainly by the
end of this year
Almost certainly not.
(Toshiba and NEC have devices close to market) with cell phones close
behind.
http://www.arstechnica.com/archive/news/1057018098.html for NEC,
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2003_03/pr0501.htm for Toshiba
One of my clients is *the* leader in the development of small fuel
cells. Even they are not so stupid as to claim that they will be on the
market by the end of this year.
I hope they don't realise you don't know what you're talking about, then
- you can buy small fuelcells now from Smart Fuel Cell in Germany. And
if they are *the* leader, then I'll know them.
http://www.smartfuelcell.de/en/produkte/sfc_a25.html
You still haven't explained why the production of hydrogen in a
single place, where emissions are far more easily regulated and cleaned
- economies of scale make regulation and technology much more affordable
and efficient - is not preferable to loads of small, badly maintained
emissions generators (vehicles) pushing out pollutants at street-level
in centres of population. And, of course, for a company like BOC, CO2 is
a saleable by-product, not a vented emission.
I have, as I pointed out, use of the same fuel in
Sorry? I repeat, You still haven't explained why the production of
hydrogen in a single place, where emissions are far more easily
regulated and cleaned - economies of scale make regulation and
technology much more affordable and efficient - is not preferable to
loads of small, badly maintained emissions generators (vehicles)
pushing out pollutants at street-level in centres of population.
Your blether about CO2 being saleable is ********. There is a huge
oversupply of CO2, there is no value in the raw material, the value
comes from the added value of the service of packaging the CO2 and
moving it where it is needed. Furthermore, selling it does not remove it
from the emissions inventory.
But you can sell it, right?
Which, of course, is the nub - Governments recognised the harm not being
able to control emissions from individual sources does, so currently
fuel cells are a natural progression in the legislation led drive for
zero-emission vehicles. By focussing on vehicles, the authorities are
not looking for a holistic approach, but a pragmatic one.
They are looking for window dressing. Fuel cells can only make emissions
worse, not better. Unless and until hydrogen can be produced in
sufficiently large quantities from renewable sources. You can stick your
head in the sand all you like, but partially burning a fuel before
selling it does not make that fuel either clean or renewable, nor will
that fuel be affordable.
You really don't understand this, do you? How do you produce carbon
based fuels? By refining them... How is that different?
And, whether you like it or not, fuel cells are currently winning the
race to provide zero-emission motive power for vehicles, to comply with
that legislation.
Only if one takes a ludicroulsy short-sighted view of the term "zero
emission".
Where did I suggest it was anything else? However, would you prefer
emissions at street level, in your face, or in a handful of controllable
locations? (this is not NIMBYism - it's common sense. I'd rather live
next to a chemical works than beside the M25, for instance - the air
quality would be much better. And I'm in chemical plants and refineries
several times a month in the course of my job, so I know what I'm
talking about).
--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------