Article

2004-10-16 China-Japan-Koreas

JAPAN: Gas companies preparing to market fuel cells

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-16 5:19:57 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 We need this in the US. President Bush has financed a lot ofresearch in this area. Could you imagine getting us off of imported oil and reducing the coal we need to burn for electricity?

Posted by OldSpook 2004-10-16 7:31:27 AM|| 2004-10-16 7:31:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "It will have a power generation efficiency of 31% and heat efficiency of 40%."

That sucks pretty bad. You get more just from burning the oil or coal. This has a long way to go.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-16 7:35:56 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-16 7:35:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 It isn't competitive in the US where coal is cheap. But Japan uses oil, gas, or nukes to generate electricity. So the fuel cell is competitive when waste heat used to heat water (saving electricty) is factored in.

Posted by ed 2004-10-16 8:09:54 AM|| 2004-10-16 8:09:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "...potential customers who seem to be interested in getting a fuel cell system at any price ..." This is an important point that is also true in the US. People want this alternative and say they are willing to pay more for it. There may be a tremendous market when these products become available.

Posted by Canaveral Dan 2004-10-16 8:46:34 AM|| 2004-10-16 8:46:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 For the umpteenth time, fuel cells are not an energy source. They are a means of storing energy generated from other sources. Because we will never achieve a 100% efficient fuel cell, they will INCREASE ENERGY (OIL, COAL, NUCLEAR) DEMAND.

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-16 9:17:54 AM|| 2004-10-16 9:17:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The efficiency in such systems lies in how they are used. As phil_b mentions, they are not more efficient in terms of volume usage. But they do fulfill the needs of the far left environmentalist wackos . . . .that is, they put fewer pollutants DIRECTLY into the atmosphere. But they will increase demand, not just from being less efficient. But the same reasons that Americans use more fuel when their cars get more efficient. They _feel_ good about not using as much, then they drive farther, using more fuel . . . increasing the problem.

Posted by Jame Retief 2004-10-16 9:26:34 AM|| 2004-10-16 9:26:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 OS, I agree, I think there' a great potential for job creation here when this technology starts to hit. Anything that helps us get away from oil dealings w/the soddies is a plus imho.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-10-16 9:32:06 AM|| 2004-10-16 9:32:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 bwaaahhhaaaaaa! That's got to strike fear in the hearts of the Saudi's. Fuel cells may not be efficient yet, but they are the future. The sooner we get there, the sooner the Saudi's can start selling off their "educational" assets abroad and stop funding jihad.

Saudi's are making a huge mistake by allowing the cost of oil to run up. As oil hits $54 a barrel, executives everywhere dust off those old proposals for alternative energy sources and give them a second look and they are starting to look a whole lot more cost effective than they did before.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-16 10:07:25 AM|| 2004-10-16 10:07:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Phil_B just being a meanie. We can run our fuel cells on free hydrogen from seawater thru our Phish carbureators and teflon engines and achieve 3900 mpg.

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-16 11:06:54 AM|| 2004-10-16 11:06:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 And if we run out of that hydrogen thing, we can always use turkey guts and ethanol.

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-16 11:07:29 AM|| 2004-10-16 11:07:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 phil_b wrote:
For the umpteenth time, fuel cells are not an energy source. They are a means of storing energy generated from other sources. Because we will never achieve a 100% efficient fuel cell, they will INCREASE ENERGY (OIL, COAL, NUCLEAR) DEMAND.

Shame on you Phil for bringing the first and second laws of thermodynamics into a discussion on energy! We should make energy policy based on hope, hype, and emotion. ;-)

Posted by Biff Wellington 2004-10-16 11:07:59 AM|| 2004-10-16 11:07:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I don't see where anyone mentioned free energy. This fuel cell uses natural gas who total energy efficiency (elec+heat) is greater than if the same amount of natural gas was used by an electric power plant.

Posted by ed 2004-10-16 11:31:32 AM|| 2004-10-16 11:31:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 "It will have a power generation efficiency of 31% and heat efficiency of 40%."

Coal fired or gas fired electric generating plants can't achieve this sort of efficiency?

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-16 11:34:07 AM|| 2004-10-16 11:34:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I agree with 2b - anything that starts the weaning process is a good thing, and given the twitchiness in the oil markets it might be enough to start prices headed the other way.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-10-16 1:04:04 PM|| 2004-10-16 1:04:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I have a machine that requires no power to run and will run continuously. I am selling shares.

But weaning off of oil is good but at the current time all our transport runs on oil. So what is a mother to do.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-16 3:56:42 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-16 3:56:42 PM|| Front Page Top

00:35 Slinenter Snart9487
08:03 Omaiger Ebberegum8916
18:57 Crusader
06:39 Mrs. Davis
06:37 Sock Puppet of Doom
06:33 Mrs. Davis
01:45 insanemandm
23:55 Capt America
23:42 .com
23:04 Charles
22:42 Barbara Skolaut
22:36 JP
22:32 jackal
22:07 Bryan
21:52 Aris Katsaris
21:47 SteveS
21:28 Ptah
21:22 Pappy
21:14 Pappy
21:00 mhw
20:36 LC FOTSGreg
20:34 BA
20:22 smn
20:22 Mrs. Davis