Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS]  "Repeal the Patriot Act" Coalition
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:24:28 -0500
To:        <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
From:     Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>

 I'm glad to see my point that the question of the ultimate=
 source
 of the energy is not the fuel cell itself . It is just a=
 minimal
 pollution ( H2O & heat , if H2 fueled ) chemical to electrical
 transformer for mobile use displacing the ultimate source of=
 the
 energy to centralized locations . 
 
 I would be very interested to know what the best current
 efficiencies are because for vehicle uses it would be in a 
 chain 
 
   motor fuelcell waterSplitter electricGenerator heatEngine 

 The over all efficiency is the product of those steps .
 That's a high hurdle compared with just carrying the heatEngine
 around with you under the hood .
 I believe that some of the most promising fuel cell work has=
 been
 on ones running on hydrocarbons - natural gas - which gets you
 back to exactly the same  CO2  creation .  Then it's just
  motor fuelcell   versus   heatEngine  .

 
 With respect to solar energy , if the sunshine at this latitude
 doesn't have enough energy to keep the ground ( and our asses )
 from freezing in the wintertime , how do you expect to extract
 surplus energy from it ? There's an energy deficit there , not
 a source .

 It's an ironic historical note the the subsidization of
 centralized power generation , eg , the TVA , short circuited
 any market for windmill generators back in the second quarter
 of the 1900s . The tens of thousands of windmills across the
 country got relegated to just pumping water .

 Certainly globally , nuclear energy will be the cleanest=
 cheapest
 centralized source of power . It will be impossible for US to=
 stop .
 And those regions with clean cheap power will prosper for their=
 sanity .

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:43:18 EST, Ravenart@aol.com wrote:
>=A0In a message dated 11/20/02 5:12:26 AM, garyonthenet@yahoo.com=
 writes:
>=A0<<=A0Fuel cells provide an increased efficiency of fuel to work=
 conversion.
> =A0They are not =A0a panacea. You still have to have a main source=
 of energy from
>=A0 which to get the fuel. Currently solar energy doesn't quite=
 cut it,
>=A0 cost-wise. Nuclear would be a good way to go though,=
 independent of the
>=A0 oil-sheiks and efficient source of fuel cell fuels. >>
>
>=A0That is very true. =A0In my own opinion which I didn't state=
 clearly enough,
>=A0creating fuels can use any other type of fuels in order to get=
 electricity
>=A0need for seperation of two H and O. =A0However, what I'm excited=
 about is the
>=A0idea of every home as both engery producer and consumer in=
 which sulplus
>=A0engery can be sold to other people. =A0That mean to me that=
 engery would no
    /\     wow pretty strong   /|\        dyslexia            /\


On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:45:53 EST, Ravenart@aol.com wrote:
>=A0When=A0the nuclear power become very small and cheap to build, 
> maybe with lasers,=A0then it will become an excellent tool
> for free life, especially if if it's a fusion.

 Happens the largest "Big Science" installation I have ever
 personally seen is the Laboratory for Laser Energetics [ Fusion=
 ]
 at the University of Rochester largely programmed in  FORTH 
 by Larry Forsley .
 

--
=A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864
http://CoSy.com/K/CoSy.htm : =A0Ultimate NoteComputing
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02002/11/20 10:26:25 AM