Fuel cell locomotive article

[Anonymous]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20030827/tc_nm/energy_fuelcell_locomotive_dc Check out this link,they are claiming that with this technology trains could have kept running during the recent blackout.I wonder how they are thinking signals,and communication would be handled.

[Anonymous]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20030827/tc_nm/energy_fuelcell_locomotive_dc Check out this link,they are claiming that with this technology trains could have kept running during the recent blackout.I wonder how they are thinking signals,and communication would be handled.

[zardoz]

Yea, that was my first thought also. Probably the company wanted some free advertising; guess we can't blame them for trying. Why don't we just skip all this intermediate technology and go right to dilithium crystals?

[zardoz]

Yea, that was my first thought also. Probably the company wanted some free advertising; guess we can't blame them for trying. Why don't we just skip all this intermediate technology and go right to dilithium crystals?

[daveklepper]

Again, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you can get from it. And electric wire is more efficient.

[daveklepper]

Again, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you can get from it. And electric wire is more efficient.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, another of those Popular Mechanics ideas.

Natural gas, maybe, but not hydrogen.

But then again, if natural gas was efficient enough to run a fuel cell/electric locomotive you would probably have one sitting next to your natural gas fired furnace generating electricity for your house.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, another of those Popular Mechanics ideas.

Natural gas, maybe, but not hydrogen.

But then again, if natural gas was efficient enough to run a fuel cell/electric locomotive you would probably have one sitting next to your natural gas fired furnace generating electricity for your house.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you can get from it. And electric wire is more efficient.

In an article I read about 40 years ago it sugessted that large amounts of Hydrogen could be obtained economically by building Nuclear power plants on artifical islands in the ocean and using the electricty to separate hydrogen from sea water.

At the time there was lots of talk about hydrogen as a fuel, but most of the advocates didn't consider where to get it. The seemed to assume that because hydrogen is so abundant it would be easy.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you can get from it. And electric wire is more efficient.

In an article I read about 40 years ago it sugessted that large amounts of Hydrogen could be obtained economically by building Nuclear power plants on artifical islands in the ocean and using the electricty to separate hydrogen from sea water.

At the time there was lots of talk about hydrogen as a fuel, but most of the advocates didn't consider where to get it. The seemed to assume that because hydrogen is so abundant it would be easy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

One place where they are working hard on hydrogen as fuel is Iceland. Iceland imports all its oil, yet it is geothermal heaven. They are working on generating electricity from the free geothermal energy to "carrier" it by hydrogen to vehicles. There's also talk of exporting hydrogen by tanker to the US.

Yeah, and if you think that tanker full of LPG makes for a fun time, just wait until that tanker full of LH2 hits port!

Back years ago in the dark age of slide rules, took an ENE class in my Masters program where we calculated the explosive power of a full LPG supertanker in LA harbor. Several Horoshima bombs. Recall it would level a good part of the south end of the basin if it went off. LH2 is even more energetic. Think of a hundred thousand Hindenburgs under extreme pressure.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

One place where they are working hard on hydrogen as fuel is Iceland. Iceland imports all its oil, yet it is geothermal heaven. They are working on generating electricity from the free geothermal energy to "carrier" it by hydrogen to vehicles. There's also talk of exporting hydrogen by tanker to the US.

Yeah, and if you think that tanker full of LPG makes for a fun time, just wait until that tanker full of LH2 hits port!

Back years ago in the dark age of slide rules, took an ENE class in my Masters program where we calculated the explosive power of a full LPG supertanker in LA harbor. Several Horoshima bombs. Recall it would level a good part of the south end of the basin if it went off. LH2 is even more energetic. Think of a hundred thousand Hindenburgs under extreme pressure.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you can get from it. And electric wire is more efficient.

Dave-

Thanks for bringing that up. Ask any scientist why fuel cell technology won't work in the here and now and that is the first reason you will hear.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you can get from it. And electric wire is more efficient.

Dave-

Thanks for bringing that up. Ask any scientist why fuel cell technology won't work in the here and now and that is the first reason you will hear.

LC

[Anonymous]

Same way with "clean" solar, that causes more emissions in the manufacture of the cells than it eliminates.

I find it fascinating that the folks who hype this stuff the most either (1) have a stake in it (a small minority) or (2) have never had any scientific training whatsoever (the vast majority, including most of the media and the celebrity spokespersons).

[Anonymous]

Same way with "clean" solar, that causes more emissions in the manufacture of the cells than it eliminates.

I find it fascinating that the folks who hype this stuff the most either (1) have a stake in it (a small minority) or (2) have never had any scientific training whatsoever (the vast majority, including most of the media and the celebrity spokespersons).