------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BCF389.B1E6E6E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Abraham Moses Genen
**************************************************************
Being dedicated to the future progress of humankind=20
should be the prime concern of all civilized beings.=20
**************************************************************
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.=20
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 =20
>
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BCF389.B1E6E6E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">