JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:25:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://yachtpals.com/hydrogen-boats-7030

Looks like some engineering students are really getting serious about
hydro-cell technology for marine propulsion. Looks like it could
evolve into a a great alternate to fossil fuel and high dock prices.

I wish 'em success!

Why is this better than the "diesel electrics" I've heard about? You have to
regen the engergy somehow. I'm also not sure it's as clean as they youtube
claimed. You have to make the battery. Of course, it's a step in the right
direction.

"This time, however, instead of belching smoke and fire, the
cutting-edge power source behind this voyage will produce nothing but
water vapor, as the New Cleremont is powered by two specially adapted
electric trolling motors connected to a couple of 2.2 kilowatt
hydrogen fuel cells."

'Nothing but water vapor' seems to say it all. Yes, the battery had to
be produced, but your 'diesel electric' had to be produced *and* it's
a polluter.

How much energy and from what source did the energy come from to get the
hydrogen into the fuel cells? It may be the future but it aint quite
there yet.

Diesel electric is still more cost effective.

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:25:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://yachtpals.com/hydrogen-boats-7030

Looks like some engineering students are really getting serious about
hydro-cell technology for marine propulsion. Looks like it could
evolve into a a great alternate to fossil fuel and high dock prices.

I wish 'em success!
Why is this better than the "diesel electrics" I've heard about? You have to
regen the engergy somehow. I'm also not sure it's as clean as they youtube
claimed. You have to make the battery. Of course, it's a step in the right
direction.
"This time, however, instead of belching smoke and fire, the
cutting-edge power source behind this voyage will produce nothing but
water vapor, as the New Cleremont is powered by two specially adapted
electric trolling motors connected to a couple of 2.2 kilowatt
hydrogen fuel cells."

'Nothing but water vapor' seems to say it all. Yes, the battery had to
be produced, but your 'diesel electric' had to be produced *and* it's
a polluter.
How much energy and from what source did the energy come from to get the
hydrogen into the fuel cells? It may be the future but it aint quite
there yet.

Diesel electric is still more cost effective.



Hydrogen is a scam, much like ethanol. Overall it is an energy loser.

Hybrid vehicles are a scam too. What is the "carbon foot print" of the
battery pack to produce and to recycle?

"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:25:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://yachtpals.com/hydrogen-boats-7030

Looks like some engineering students are really getting serious about
hydro-cell technology for marine propulsion. Looks like it could
evolve into a a great alternate to fossil fuel and high dock prices.

I wish 'em success!
Why is this better than the "diesel electrics" I've heard about? You
have to regen the engergy somehow. I'm also not sure it's as clean as
they youtube claimed. You have to make the battery. Of course, it's a
step in the right direction.
"This time, however, instead of belching smoke and fire, the
cutting-edge power source behind this voyage will produce nothing but
water vapor, as the New Cleremont is powered by two specially adapted
electric trolling motors connected to a couple of 2.2 kilowatt
hydrogen fuel cells."

'Nothing but water vapor' seems to say it all. Yes, the battery had to
be produced, but your 'diesel electric' had to be produced *and* it's
a polluter.
How much energy and from what source did the energy come from to get the
hydrogen into the fuel cells? It may be the future but it aint quite
there yet.

Diesel electric is still more cost effective.



Hydrogen is a scam, much like ethanol. Overall it is an energy loser.

Hybrid vehicles are a scam too. What is the "carbon foot print" of the
battery pack to produce and to recycle?


I wouldn't call it a scam, but it's certainly not the end all/be all of
effective environmentalism. I heard someone say (might have said this
before) that it's better to be a vegetarian and own a Hummer than eat meat
and own a Prius.

--
Nom=de=Plume

It may seem a scam at this very moment, but I believe it will get
lined out in the future and become very cost effective, and the
technology grows.

take a look at where the computer has gone from the ABC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanaso...Berry_Computer

then the ENIAC , not only in costs but capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

I'pods and memory sticks have more capabilities than the top computers
10 years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that the hydro-cell has a place in the
near future.

Anything "new" is cost prohibitive .

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

It may seem a scam at this very moment, but I believe it will get
lined out in the future and become very cost effective, and the
technology grows.

take a look at where the computer has gone from the ABC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanaso...Berry_Computer

then the ENIAC , not only in costs but capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

I'pods and memory sticks have more capabilities than the top computers
10 years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that the hydro-cell has a place in the
near future.

Anything "new" is cost prohibitive .


Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.


It's a matter of efficency, not of changing the laws of physics.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:28:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.


It's a matter of efficency, not of changing the laws of physics.

If it costs as exactly much energy to get hydrogen as you get when you
use it (perfect efficiency) it still isn't a fuel, it is just a good
battery. Unfortunately the losses are pretty big.
This is great for the space program where cost is no object but not
very practical competing with Li ON batteries, or even lead.

I suppose you could start with elemental hydrogen but most commercial
hydrogen comes from natural gas wells The problem is it is a lot more
expensive.
Why not just use the natural gas? The CLNE solution.


Why not use batteries that can be recharged by a small amount of a known
commodity that's already fairly inexpensive... diesel or natural gas or
whatever. Diesel is ubiquitous, which decreases the hassle factor. Someone
said you still have to get the hydrogen right?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:08:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If it costs as exactly much energy to get hydrogen as you get when you
use it (perfect efficiency) it still isn't a fuel, it is just a good
battery. Unfortunately the losses are pretty big.
This is great for the space program where cost is no object but not
very practical competing with Li ON batteries, or even lead.

I suppose you could start with elemental hydrogen but most commercial
hydrogen comes from natural gas wells The problem is it is a lot more
expensive.
Why not just use the natural gas? The CLNE solution.


Why not use batteries that can be recharged by a small amount of a known
commodity that's already fairly inexpensive... diesel or natural gas or
whatever. Diesel is ubiquitous, which decreases the hassle factor. Someone
said you still have to get the hydrogen right?

If you are burning diesel, why do you need a battery?
I thought we were trying to get away from fossil fuels.



Because you don't have to burn so much or so often. That's what happens with
hybrids. They burn a lot less fuel. They're not perfect, but nothing is
perfect.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 22, 12:01*am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:



It may seem a scam at this very moment, but I believe it will get
lined out in the future and become very cost effective, and the
technology grows.

take a look at where the computer has gone from the ABC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanaso...Berry_Computer

then the ENIAC , not only in costs but capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

I'pods and memory sticks have more capabilities than the top computers
10 years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that the hydro-cell has a place in the
near future.

Anything "new" is cost prohibitive .

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or defying physics?????


good lord. I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

....

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or defying physics?????


good lord. I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

It might become a suitable "portable" fuel like gasoline if production
costs and safety issues could be resolved. One possible production
solution would be to create hydrogen from sea water using nuclear
power. Of course if battery technology were better that would be the
way to go instead of creating hydrogen.

On Sep 22, 7:39*am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:45:43 -0400, Wayne.B



wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Computers don't violate the laws of physics.
It takes as much energy to get hydrogen out of a compound as you get
when you put it back. It is a chemical battery.

Who said anything about upholding or *defying physics?????

good lord. *I'm saying that eventually hydrogen power will become a
viable (economically as well as ecologically) option in power...

It might become a suitable "portable" fuel like gasoline if production
costs and safety issues could be resolved. * One possible production
solution would be to create hydrogen from sea water using nuclear
power. *Of course if battery technology were better that would be the
way to go instead of creating hydrogen.

The only viable plan I have seen was to use the waste energy from nuke
plants to crack hydrogen out of the cooling water. They were still
working on the exact process but that still assumes we have new nuke
plants set up for that.
If we could actually build nuke plants that made economic sense , a
lot of these problems would be moot anyway.

agreed.