[Navi00]

I just thought I'd give a broad overview of what I've been doing lately. I'm definently an amature, but I'm workin' at it =P

I'm still in the process of getting various lab materials, and building a lab down in my basement.

I've built some basic electrolsysers and experimented with various solutions & materials.

I'm in the process of building an efficant electrolsyser mechanically speaking, and once I get / build more test equipment I'm going to be doing quite a bit of research in electrochemistry.

I've already convinced myself in the volitility of hydrogen fuel =D And Accidently built a few hydrogen bombs when screwing around with various release valves XDD

I'm also building a few water tourches and things of that nature.
I'm still in highschool taking some cisco networking courses which aren't really what I want to do, but interesting none the less. I'm building a network between a friend and I which is going to be home to various technologys and sciences that I'm researching.
I'll post all that bussiness on here once it's up and running, anyone will be able to access it.

I'm also researching neurology, but that's disclosed as of now.

In the last year my passion has been directed more and more at science, so you'll be seeing a lot of me hopefully.

Thanks and let me know if you need anything =p

Good meeting you guys =p

[P-man]

I think getting hydrogen fuel through electrolysis is the best way. No pollution whatsoever. Then use it in a fuel cell and off we go!

[buckminsterfullerene]

the problem with electrolysis is that there is large amounts of pollution if you consider the normal source of this energy, usually from power plants that release CO₂; NO_x, and several other damaging pollutants into the atmosphere.  The best electrolysis is probably Solar Cells, electrolysis by power plant is the worst alternative to getting hydrogen that you could possible get.  Heating hydrogen to extremely high temperatures proves to more efficient and produces in large quantities, but requires of course more energy, but perhaps overall less pollution when compared to normal power plant.

So yea, solar cells or wind power is the way to go with electrolysis if its to made environmentally safe...

[P-man]

We need to do more research in solar cells. They are not yet efficient enough to make vast quantities of hydrogen through electrolysis.

[buckminsterfullerene]

that may actually be true, but the Solar Cells are not releasing any toxins, and they ability to operate for decades with out the need of maintanance is incredebly appealing.  But you are right, and it shows that research does affect the cost of a solar cell.  Before solar cell were assembled by hand, machinery could not assembled because the cells were considerably thin and brittle, but with research they have create a robot, the effect was the decrease cost of production of $7 per watt to $3 per watt.  An interesting advancement which i think has a lot of hope, is polymer solar cells, they are not brittle, they are flexible, and a remarkable feature is that it can literally be printed on a surface.  Atleast according to a video that i saw in Solar Energy class, making mass production easier, but it did not mention on the efficiency.

Fuel cells are actually more efficient than many other processes used to generate electricity.  When we look at combustion engines in generators, massive amounts of energy is lost in the process of moving gears, and thermal energy is released, making the efficiency to actually be considerably low, but the low cost of production places generators into a better position, is not that they are more efficient than solar cells it all comes down to cost and ability to be mass produced.

The cost of generating hydrogen through solar cells is basically cheap.  you could buy a simple 15 watt solar panel, place it outside, have it connected to the electrodes (hopefully made of platinum unless the water is distilled, Nickel is not an efficient catalyst as platinum is in this case ) and leave it outside while you go inside to do what-ever you need to do.  The water molecules with break apart at a decent speed, almost as efficiency as connecting the electrodes to a 9V battery (according to what i observed when i did it).

[jdurg]

that may actually be true, but the Solar Cells are not releasing any toxins, and they ability to operate for decades with out the need of maintanance is incredebly appealing.  But you are right, and it shows that research does affect the cost of a solar cell.  Before solar cell were assembled by hand, machinery could not assembled because the cells were considerably thin and brittle, but with research they have create a robot, the effect was the decrease cost of production of $7 per watt to $3 per watt.  An interesting advancement which i think has a lot of hope, is polymer solar cells, they are not brittle, they are flexible, and a remarkable feature is that it can literally be printed on a surface.  Atleast according to a video that i saw in Solar Energy class, making mass production easier, but it did not mention on the efficiency.

Fuel cells are actually more efficient than many other processes used to generate electricity.  When we look at combustion engines in generators, massive amounts of energy is lost in the process of moving gears, and thermal energy is released, making the efficiency to actually be considerably low, but the low cost of production places generators into a better position, is not that they are more efficient than solar cells it all comes down to cost and ability to be mass produced.

The cost of generating hydrogen through solar cells is basically cheap.  you could buy a simple 15 watt solar panel, place it outside, have it connected to the electrodes (hopefully made of platinum unless the water is distilled, Nickel is not an efficient catalyst as platinum is in this case ) and leave it outside while you go inside to do what-ever you need to do.  The water molecules with break apart at a decent speed, almost as efficiency as connecting the electrodes to a 9V battery (according to what i observed when i did it).

Very true indeed.  However the problems one encounters there is that platinum is VERY expensive and our platinum reserves are shrinking on a daily basis.  The high cost of the platinum will result in a high cost for the fuel cell which will turn people off of it.  The biggest problem with solar fuel cells is reliability.  If you have cloud cover one day, you generate ZERO energy.  The only place that a fuel cell can be reliably run is in a desert with zero cloud cover.  That limits the locations in which the fuel cells can be stored and will cause issues just like we currently have with oil.  (Where a select few countries are able to produce the oil, and as a result they rape everybody financially over it).  It's a similar situation with wind power.  Where there is a constant, uninterrupted flow of wind the use of wind power is very efficient and very effective.  With any energy source you need to have it be reliable.  If you stop generating electricity when the sun goes down, or when there's a cloud overhead, or when it's foggy outside, you won't have a very reliable source.  That's the big thing that research is attempting to overcome.  Once they can do that then there won't be too much of a problem.

[buckminsterfullerene]

Very true indeed.  However the problems one encounters there is that platinum is VERY expensive and our platinum reserves are shrinking on a daily basis.  The high cost of the platinum will result in a high cost for the fuel cell which will turn people off of it.  The biggest problem with solar fuel cells is reliability.  If you have cloud cover one day, you generate ZERO energy.  The only place that a fuel cell can be reliably run is in a desert with zero cloud cover.  That limits the locations in which the fuel cells can be stored and will cause issues just like we currently have with oil.  (Where a select few countries are able to produce the oil, and as a result they rape everybody financially over it).  It's a similar situation with wind power.  Where there is a constant, uninterrupted flow of wind the use of wind power is very efficient and very effective.  With any energy source you need to have it be reliable.  If you stop generating electricity when the sun goes down, or when there's a cloud overhead, or when it's foggy outside, you won't have a very reliable source.  That's the big thing that research is attempting to overcome.  Once they can do that then there won't be too much of a problem.

when you said about placing fuel cells in deserts you meant solar cells right?? (hehe have made that mistake too on several occasions)

Solar cells do, as a matter of fact, generate a voltage and some current in cloudy weather.  The voltage is relatively unchanged but the intensity of light affects the amount of current that a solar cell generates.  A solar cell generates electricity through photons, so any intensity light will actually generate some electricity, there are just some intensities that will make the process more efficienty.  Solar cell technology is getting far better, now they are creating polymer based solar cells which are highly flexible and even fuel cells that can be printed on a surface.  the cost has gone down from several dollars to produce a solar cell to only $3 per watt (still production is a major factor, materials are relatively cheap, silicon is the second most abundant element on the surface of the planet)

There are also other methods of generating electricity, such as Central Receiver Systems whose main factor is probably space.  The way it works is by having a towers several hundred feet in the air that stors salt.  there are a series of magnifying mirrors around this tower, called heliostats, which are aimed at the tower.  The tower is capable of heating to perhaps 1000^oC(around there) and the system can continue on operating through out the night on the heat collected in the day.  The molten salt will heat water stored underground, which turns a turbine and privides hot water.  The system is capable of generating a few megawatts of electricity, enough to run a small town.  Currently there are two or three such systems i have heard about, 2 of them are located in celifornia, perhaps the most famous is Solar One i think is located in Joaquin, California.

The amazing ability for fuel cells to generate electricity at efficiency levels very close to 100% makes it an incredeble choice for transportation.  They are capable of operating as long as hydogen is supplied.

It is true, current prices of platinum are discoraging some people, but fuel cells can go nano.  In fact i have seen a 3 Kw fuel cell that weights less than 5 pounds, it uses less platinum than a normal 3 Kw stack that could weight atleast 10 times.  There are also several advancements in the fuel cell industry (it seems as if the possible market created in California, where they are in the process of making hydrogen pumps, has created an outburst of entrepeneuty in the fuel cell industry) some examples includes feats by GM, which recently showcased what it considers to be one of the smallest and most efficient fuel cell stacks for automotive purposes, made with platinum and gold placed in a certain arrangement (i did not find out how much energy it produced atleast not yet).  It is evident that as the size of a fuel cell gets smaller the importance of platinum decreases, the cost of material decreases, but the labor increses.  and the major problem with fuel cell stacks is that they have to be hand assembled (a process taking almost an entire day to assemble just one fuel cell).  Ballard and several other fuel cell industries hope that robots will be able to help in the future.  In fact Ballard (i think it was ballard or else another fuel cell giant) hopes to decrease the cost of fuel cell stacks from the current $1000 per Kw to $500 Kw by 2010, and that in the near future it will decrease to $50 per kilowatt.  Of course time restraints depends on how much research we dedicate to fuel cells.

In fact we may see fuel cells in our cellphones and laptops as soon as 2007-2008.  Methanol fuel cells are incredebly small, do not require water to operate, just a current, and increases the efficiency of batteries pretty significantly.  the battery life of a laptop can increase from 2 hours to 10-12 hours (pretty significant).  Also Stanfford University has been able to create a fuel cell that is i think a few microns or picometers in lenght, though of course it would generate very little electricity but if it were arranged in a parrallel or series circuit the size of a fuel cell stack would be incredebly small and the amount of energy produced would be larger.

the capability of fuel cells in our futures depends greatly on research, and the government involvement to create such technological feats.

[jdurg]

Heh.  Oops.    Shows what happens when I quickly stop by the forums when I really should be working.  

[billnotgatez]

I am not promoting this idea, but I think the current USA administration is promoting lots of nuclear power plants and not renewable energy sources. Thus one would get lots of electricity directly and for the hydrogen economy. Therefor the USA would not be dependent on foreign oil. That is best understanding I got based on recent speeches and conservative think tanks publications.

[jdurg]

If there wasn't such a social and political stigma on plutonium, the use of nuclear power could easily be a huge boost to our energy supplies in terms of raw energy, and energy used to produce other forms of energy.  Breeder reactors could produce more fuel than they consume and would only require fuel reprocessing plants to be built near the reactors.  The use of nuclear power would result in a great number of jobs, but socially people don't even want the slightest bit of radioactivity anywhere near them and would kill any attempt at producing another power plant.  It would take a HUGE amount of education of the generally ignorant public before a movement towards nuclear power begins again.

[billnotgatez]

Based on observation (not necessarily my predilection), I see the current president of the USA pushing through a nuclear agenda with little problem. Since even with low approval ratings he has the legislature on his side. I do not see any real commitment for renewable energy systems by the present administration. They will just place the reactors in places that can not form sufficient opposition as they did with the Yucca situation. I expect to see building starting in a few months when the cost of petroleum (even at the present levels) will wear away at any resistance to nuclear.

[buckminsterfullerene]

If there wasn't such a social and political stigma on plutonium, the use of nuclear power could easily be a huge boost to our energy supplies in terms of raw energy, and energy used to produce other forms of energy.  Breeder reactors could produce more fuel than they consume and would only require fuel reprocessing plants to be built near the reactors.  The use of nuclear power would result in a great number of jobs, but socially people don't even want the slightest bit of radioactivity anywhere near them and would kill any attempt at producing another power plant.  It would take a HUGE amount of education of the generally ignorant public before a movement towards nuclear power begins again.

when you consider the 4.2 million half life of plutonium and the fact that we have no way to discard the waste as well as one historical even that has left a prevously populated area literally inhabited for the past several decades, with the few people that listened to government that it was safe to move in having a general lifespan of only 42 years, i would say its a resonable threat.  I recently read an article in the newspaper posting concerns with the waste of two nuclear reactors within 50 miles from where i live, they have no place to dispose of the nuclear waste, the pools that use to store the nuclear wste is allready full and they have place most of the nuclear waste in giant steel and cement containers that is placed outside.  

The reason, well they have attempted to create a storage facility somewhere in the country, it was expected to be completed by 2003 but they still have not completed this facility, now they estimate to finish by 2010 but many people are unsure if it will be completed.  This facility was to store the nuclear waste from all nuclear power plants accross the nation.  You should understand how such a problem has limited power plants accross the nation from producing more energy, many are decreasing their electricity production and some are acquiring giant containers costing them millions, placed outside (the concern is that they are suseptible to a missile)

[Borek]

historical even that has left a prevously populated area literally inhabited for the past several decades

You mean Czernobyl?

Radiation level on substantial part of the area is below natural levels occuring in some other places of the world. These other places are inhabited and nobody puts red line around them to disallow acces.

That's mainly political problem. Ukraine for twenty years was exaggerating situation to gain as much help from the western countries as possible. Reports prepared by IAEA clearly showed that. However, Joe Public fears radiation and doesn't understand a thing, so he easily believes that the situation there is critical, instead of believing objective evaluation that it is not. Ukraine plays this note very efficiently, thus Joe Public fears more and more. Circle closes here.

Unfortunately that means that instead of putting reasonable amount of work and research into nuclear energy and nuclear power stations, we are loosing time for stupid discussions. Note that I am not a nuclear energy proponent - I just don't think we gave it enough chances to prove or disprove itself.

[buckminsterfullerene]

that was not the only problem that i stated on my previous response, that was simply one of the problems.  What about all the nuclear waste that has no place to go, according to my chemistry teacher a timble full of plutonium is capable of killing all living things (humans, plants, animals) in an area equivalent to manhattan island, that is pretty substantial.  We have no where to place this nuclear waste, currently we place them in giant pools filled with water that regulates the temperature, but they are getting filled after the power plants have been in operation for several decades.  Now they are placing giant containers outside, i agree we need to research more, on containing this incredebly dangerous material.

There is research with bacterium that is capable of ingesting this nuclear waste, but it is considerably slow in doing its work.  However, when we find it to be more efficient i agree nuclear energy will become a leader.

Or how about reserach other energy sources which may be able to produce equivalent amounts of energy, but not have the dangerous side-effects as the current nuclear fission.  I am talking about the nuclear fussion, there is currently a massive project underway in Europe where they are creating a very large nuclear fussion plant, it will have dueterium heated at massive temperatures with giant electromagnetic magnets that will contain the energy in the center, imagine containing the power of the sun in a structure i consider that to be amazing, why is the US not doing that?
Currently we have not signed the kyoto protocol, which means that we do not have an emergency to decrease global pollution or to invest that much money in renewable energy resources, which we should be doing.

Many of you might have seen the State of the Union address by President Bush where he said that he will increase funding of renewable energy resources by 22%, however, when you look at what it actually is it is not that great.  President Bush also said before being elected in 2000 that he would provide $1 billion towards hydrogen reserach, what you did not hear is that this money would be spent over a 5 year period, and he gave $8.5 billion to drill on a reservation.  The success of this nation as far as energy depends on the involvement of the government in such issues, we are late in taking action.

I believe i heard somewhere that the current renewable energy budget is $500 million, i hope that is not true, because a 22% percent increase is not alot, when Europe is spending billions on a single project.

[billnotgatez]

I wonder how much is being spent on heavy element nuclear research in the USA.