Battery efficiency is improving faster than fuel cells

Hey hyperion where are you. I need another realist opinion for these arguments.

If history is any guide, when "they" say there will be 10 MWatt wind turbines by 2010, I'll bet on 5 to 7 years after that. The biggest wind farm, in Califonia at 3200 turbines, can only produce 350 MWatts on a really windy day. GE is only now selling 1.5 MWatt turbines. So wind power will always be nothing more than a supplement. But I'll be the last to talk down on wind power, because the R & D being applied to them also applies to the motors in our cars.

But to get back to the subject, anything that is researched for fuel cells usually applies to batteries. So if nanotechnology solves a problem for batteries, it can generally be applied to fuel cells. But the money being poured into batteries will keep them ahead on the R & D road for a long long time. Their efficiencies might increase so much so, open loop fuel cells might be forgotten for a while.

As for solar cells, even if all the new homes were required to have at least 3 KW on them, they can't make enough. But the R & D being poured into these also includes nanotechnology which make efficiencies higher. But again the progress is glacial. Those 50% cells might not be here until 2020.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"89846)</div>

? hmmm ? "semi complete" thoughts? Just teasing, you're ok.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"89846)</div>

True enough, a lot of folks who are otherwise well-intentioned seem to have forgotten that the energy has to come from somewhere. When you figure that the average home has doubled in size over the past 20 years, and HVAC has experienced at most 40% improvements in efficiency, the net is still more energy use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett\";p=\"89849)</div>

That's why the net is *higher* energy use by making hydrogen to burn as a gas. Hydrogen is all around us, but to get it into a form as handy as regular unleaded is the big trick.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett\";p=\"89849)</div>

Still amazing that folks are talking of compressing hydrogen, as it doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I would love to see 40,000psi bottles in small cars: the fitting blows off and the car takes off like a Tomahawk missile.

Even if you hydride it into a metal, the net is still a much higher energy cost. It would make more sense after hydriding it to put the gas through a PEM and generate electricity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"90020)</div>

Yup. "I'm calling my car The Hindenberg!"

Oh, the humanity. :mrgreen:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(drash\";p=\"90014)</div>

Over here in Europe we already have 7 megawatt turbines generating electricity, but they're currently sited quite far inland. The manufacturers expect to reach 10MW with the offshore variants. Remember Denmark gets almost a quarter of its electricity from wind turbines, so the power really is there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bookrats\";p=\"90049)</div>

Jeff:

Though I would love to rig up a nozzle aft on my future hydrogen car with 40,000psi tank. I could rig it to vent aft on command. It sure would make merging onto the Interstate a LOT more fun!

I could also rig up a sparker to ignite the hydrogen in atmosphere as it vented from the nozzle. That would take care of any tailgating SUV's ... WHOOOOSH!

Jay

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett\";p=\"90144)</div>

There was a great documentary on wind turbines powering Denmark. I think it was on Discovery a few years ago. The turbines are located close offshore.

I think the most successful strategy will be a combination of technologies, as they all have their place depending on things like climate, geography, population density, spatial distribution of population, etc etc.

I'm still surprised that a proven technology to increase the efficiency of large buildings - cogeneration - still isn't making huge inroads.