From: Abraham Moses Genen (futurist@frontiernet.net)
Date: Mon Nov 17 1997 - 16:50:37 MST
Abraham Moses Genen
**************************************************************
Being dedicated to the future progress of humankind
should be the prime concern of all civilized beings.
**************************************************************
Michael M. Butler wrote:
>I absolutely agree with most of what you say. In particular, I agree I
>could be wrong. I would search my mind for the last time I've seen a
>post where you admitted the same regarding yourself, but I seem to have
>promised unilateral non-aggression. Bother.
>
>I stand by my belief that hydrocarbon reformation at point of use
>(including *inside* the fuel cell) is the only practical "hydrogen" use
>for the foreseeable future* for most personal-use vehicles. See below:
>such use does not contradict the notion that cars may have fuel cells in
>them. *(Of course governments impose all sorts of impractical things on
>people; and the foreseeable future is only about five years).
>
>Re: pollution: Yes, and sort of, and no. Depends on what you mean by
>pollution. Less airborne nitrox compounds, sure. But the carbon and
>trace elements in the fuel have to go somewhere. And catalyst bed
>contamination remains a serious problem. Further, as I mentioned before,
>many "hydrogen economy" plans just move the pollution around, while
>_increasing_ the sum. Examples: farmed-methanol, central-site
>electrolysis with hydride storage, etc.
>
>Now, hypothetical complex-organic fuel cell catalysts (verging on
>enzymes in complexity) *might* solve these problems. I devoutly wish
>for them. But evidence of their actual commercial-quantity appearance
>remains sketchy at the present time--even though I built a
>bacteria-powered fuel cell twenty years ago. IMHO, bulk nano is the most
>likely way to produce such--by which time _everything else changes too_.
>
>AFAIK, all published fuel cell chemistries that use hydrocarbons
>function in exactly the way I describe, by reforming the fuel at point
>of use: the fuel cell. Methanol is expensive for reasons mentioned
>previously. The issue isn't purely one of how efficent the _fuel cell_
>is; it's a _systems_ concern.
>And I am extremely interested in the carbon-fiber/carbon-tubule H2
>storage systems. Nonetheless, I still think gas stations will pump gas
>(or something very like it) for a while. The energy desnity (per gram
>_or_ per cc) of 87-octane regular gasoline is hard to beat.
>
>It is perfectly possible that that fuel will run a fuel cell. I never
>said otherwise.
>
>As for the international impact of any (even a *tiny*) shift in energy
>use by the USA, G7, Pac Tigers, etc... well, that's a straw man if I
>ever heard one. Clearly people are prepared to fight over this stuff.
>People are prepared to fight over lots of things.
>
>and further wrote in part:
_and_ they have a huge capital cost and Weltpolitik
>impact as long as the primary catalyst is platinum. {Platimum trades at
>around $380 an ounce. The US is not a big world supplier. Connect the
>dots.)
>
>MMB
>--
>Dear Michael and other fellow Extropians:
I suspect that many of the technical details you have provided may be correct.
The use of Platinum in catalysts is another issue as well. It is my understanding, however, that this particular precious metal is not of consequence in most of the developing fuel cell technologies. It seems that other oxidizing compounds are available at much less cost.
You may wish to conduct further research in this regard to confirm or deny the information provided to me as of this date.
Respectfully,
AMG
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:08 MST