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

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:15:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

A lot of that depends on your driving patterns If you are in stop and
go traffic, the hybrid will save fuel. On the interstate I don't see
it saving much over any car with a small engine. As soon as you
deplete the battery, it is just running on the engine. I was always
curious how a Prius performs on the highway after 50 miles (or however
long the battery can help it).
I know Bill Maher changed his opinion of his Prius after he owned it a
while. He ended up saying it was just a car with a small motor that
gets pretty good mileage. I assume he based that on freeway driving.
When I saw some independent tests comparing the Civic with a
comparable Civic hybrid the highway ratings were virtually the same,
actually giving the edge to the regular Civic at higher speeds.


I have a friend who claims over 40 mpg on the highway. I believe the Civic
does do almost as well on the highway. Most of our driving though is under
40 miles I believe... it should be all electric and rechargeable overnight.
The diesel should only be used if absolutely necessary. I heard the new
Prius comes with a solar panel roof. That sounds good.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:52:23 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:15:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

A lot of that depends on your driving patterns If you are in stop and
go traffic, the hybrid will save fuel. On the interstate I don't see
it saving much over any car with a small engine. As soon as you
deplete the battery, it is just running on the engine. I was always
curious how a Prius performs on the highway after 50 miles (or however
long the battery can help it).
I know Bill Maher changed his opinion of his Prius after he owned it a
while. He ended up saying it was just a car with a small motor that
gets pretty good mileage. I assume he based that on freeway driving.
When I saw some independent tests comparing the Civic with a
comparable Civic hybrid the highway ratings were virtually the same,
actually giving the edge to the regular Civic at higher speeds.

Most of the Prius I see around here have an Obama sticker on the back.
I think that sticker alone will add five or ten miles per gallon.
--

John H

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:52:23 -0400, wrote:

A lot of that depends on your driving patterns If you are in stop and
go traffic, the hybrid will save fuel. On the interstate I don't see
it saving much over any car with a small engine.

Exactly right. The advantage of a hybrid is during acceleration when
the electric motor kicks in and gives an extra boost.

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...

....