Comments for The Green Optimistic | The Green Optimistic http://www.greenoptimistic.com Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:49:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 Comment on How Would You Survive A World Without Fossil Fuels? by beepeehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/survive-world-without-fossil-fuels/#comment-41900 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:49:00 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48723#comment-41900 LoneWolffe beepee by return email: palmerbeepee1@aol.com

]]>
Comment on How Would You Survive A World Without Fossil Fuels? by beepeehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/survive-world-without-fossil-fuels/#comment-41898 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:40:15 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48723#comment-41898 LoneWolffe beepee Yeah, between the worldwide sinkholes and the ‘ring of fire’, they may suddenly remember something about the ‘word’ referring to the world being destroyed by fire (proportionately the yoke is to the core, as the mantle is to the egg white, as the egg shell is to the earth’s crust).  Destroyed maybe, but only as we now know the earth to be, remembering that ‘dirt’ is the only thing on earth that won’t burn.

]]>
Comment on How Would You Survive A World Without Fossil Fuels? by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/survive-world-without-fossil-fuels/#comment-41897 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:04:18 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48723#comment-41897 beepee LoneWolffe well, until the money-colored glasses come off, that egg-shell is open season for the highest bidder. won’t they be surprised when there’s nothing inside.

]]>
Comment on How Would You Survive A World Without Fossil Fuels? by beepeehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/survive-world-without-fossil-fuels/#comment-41896 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:51:32 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48723#comment-41896 LoneWolffe beepee First off, I like the video (but now I’ll have
nightmares).I agree, man HAS been
ingenious, and due to necessity and/or evolution, has moved through the
‘ages’.But the impact of ‘money’ has blurred
the vision.As if to say that the
promise of a “fiddle of gold” has no consequences.The point is that, “getting and spending, we
lay waste our powers; little we see in nature is really ours”, was written a
very, very long time ago.The egg shell
is as strong, as it is fragile. . . . but once compromised, will be interesting
(for about 7 days).
 Population
explosion, for that I don’t have an answer. 
But that is where man’s ingenuity could prevail – provided that “the
love of” money (in the person of oil extraction) doesn’t first cause the earth’s
demise (you know, the egg shell thing)..

]]>
Comment on How Would You Survive A World Without Fossil Fuels? by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/survive-world-without-fossil-fuels/#comment-41895 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:55:47 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48723#comment-41895 beepee it’s quite possible that, simply maintaining the status quo could lead to a population implosion. on the other hand, mankind is pretty ingenious. isn’t that the whole point?
there was a point brought out in one of the documentaries, i forget which, that said something to the effect of “man didn’t get out of the stone age because he ran out of stone, and man didn’t get out of the iron age because he ran out of iron, he’ll get out of the industrial age the same way, man’s ingenuity.”
on a side note, “money is the root of all evil” hasn’t been correctly quoted for centuries. the proper quotation has always included the preface, “the love of…”
even further OT, i’ve always loved Primus’ rendition of the original classic, especially with the claymation music video :) http://youtu.be/X9uk9IcoQ0w

]]>
Comment on How Would You Survive A World Without Fossil Fuels? by beepeehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/survive-world-without-fossil-fuels/#comment-41894 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:07:24 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48723#comment-41894 “First,
we need a fundamental change in the way that we think about life”, . . . .Now, that’s
interesting.  Man’s evolution is
continually changing the fundamental “laws of physics”.  They’re subtle changes, but changes nonetheless.  Just as I was told (as a child) that we
couldn’t develop “Engine Motors”, based on our concept of “Energy” (heat), I
was told that “money was the route of all evil”.  Well now it’s, “THE LOVE of money, is the
route of all evil”. . . . Money, in and of itself, is the absolute embodiment of
evil.
Old
School energy concepts where fine, but “this is not your Father’s Oldsmobile”.  “53 years of petroleum left”, may be
accurate, but the earth’s “egg shell crust” will be compromised long before then.  Maybe the earth’s demise is a good thing
because supporting 7 billion people represents only one tip of the proverbial iceberg.  That means potentially an exponential
population explosion represented by 3 million daily births (less 1 million
daily deaths – that’s 2 million people reaching productive age, EVERYDAY in the
near future).
Humans
are intelligent beings that can figure-out almost anything (that’s how Physics
has evolved as a science).  But, we are
also creatures of habit, and our ‘love of money’ makes/allows us to ignore the handwriting
on the wall.  With what we know about: 1)
alternative (non petroleum based) green materials and efforts; 2) the new (non
heat based) energy concepts; 3) the ecology of organics (eliminating pesticides
(herbicides technically fall under the description of pesticides)); and finally
(possibly man’s greatest invention ever); 4) the “organically fueled” diesel
engine, we’ve seen the enemy. . . . and, the enemy is ourselves.
Between
the Pied Piper and Charlie Daniels:  
“I’ll
bet a fiddle of gold, against your soul”
Enjoy:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RUg-NkjY4

]]>
Comment on How to Build a Wind Turbine for Under $30 by autorabiehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/04/23/build-wind-turbine-30/#comment-41893 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:31:19 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=47131#comment-41893 where is the video please?
autorabie@gmail.com

]]>
Comment on Climate Change – Pay Now or Pay Forever by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/climate-change-pay-now-pay-forever/#comment-41892 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 03:17:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48729#comment-41892 DavidNutzuki only goes to show who owns the regulators. unless you’re in the business of change, and change in the right direction just isn’t good for business.

]]>
Comment on Climate Change – Pay Now or Pay Forever by DavidNutzukihttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/climate-change-pay-now-pay-forever/#comment-41891 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 01:37:53 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48729#comment-41891 Deny this;
The remaining “believers” would have us believe that the scientific method prevents science from actually “saying” they are more than “95%” certain or say “proven” or “eventual” or “inevitable” even though it’s about saving the entire planet from a global climate crisis possibly caused by Human CO2. That’s why it’s called “belief”. History will call it exaggeration but generations of children will call it fear mongering.
Get up to date;
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto 2 years ago with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). And what did YOU do about it planet lovers?

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Seven – Hydrogen Fuel Stations are Too Expensive! by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/31/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-seven-hydrogen-fuel-stations-expensive/#comment-41890 Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:06:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48726#comment-41890 A recent UC Irvine http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/pdf/SustainableTransportation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf found that using electricity in BEVs directly is 2.5 times more efficient than using that same electricity to create hydrogen for use in FCVs.  This is the glaring statistic that trumps all the arguments in this myth series of hydrogen PR.  It established the basic thesis that BEVs are the most efficient mode of practical automotive transportation.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Does-Using-Excess-Renewable-Electricity-to-Create-Hydrogen-Make-Sense

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Six – Hydrogen Fuel Storage and Delivery is Dangerous by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/29/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-six-hydrogen-fuel-storage-delivery-dangerous/#comment-41884 Wed, 30 Jul 2014 21:02:59 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48719#comment-41884 If you think we do not have to worry about world oil reserves watch this.  Not talking pollution… Just reserves.  
“Crude Awakening” on YouTube.  
Note the people being interviewed and who they are!

]]>
Comment on Fracking, “Done Right,” says UK Business and Energy Minister by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/29/fracking-done-right-says-uk-business-energy-minister/#comment-41883 Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:42:36 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48715#comment-41883 Everyone needs to watch this … “Crude Awakening”
Note the guys being interviewed and who they are?

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Four – Hydrogen Fuel Storage is Dangerous by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/25/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-four-hydrogen-fuel-storage-dangerous/#comment-41882 Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:39:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48692#comment-41882 Everyone should watch this… “Crude Awakening” 
These guy’s know what is about to happen…

]]>
Comment on A Solar Powered Boat – the perfect gift for a summer day by ericforster38http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/02/15/a-solar-powered-boat-the-perfect-gift-for-a-summers-day/#comment-41880 Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:04:56 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/02/15/a-solar-powered-boat-the-perfect-gift-for-a-summers-day/#comment-41880 http://www.umtmarine.com/cranes-chocks/davits

]]>
Comment on Defective Solar Panels “Made in China” by KelfinPlanckhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/05/29/defective-solar-panels-china/#comment-41878 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:44:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=37768#comment-41878 After founding Magnetic Power Inc in the mid-eighties, Mark Goldes and MPI proceeded to develop most of the fraudcraftings which would serve as Goldes’ offerings in fraudcraft for the next thirty years, not only at MPI, but also at Chava Energy LLC, and at his so-called “Aesop Institute.” Goldes’ partnership with Hagen Ruff, the other Co-founder (as well as CEO) of Chava Energy LLC, gave the Goldes-MPI fraudcraft a new lease on life, and accordingly it may now be termed most properly the “Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft.” For the past five years or more, while serving as a Co-founder and a Chief Officer of Chava Energy LLC, Goldes used his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address as his Aesop Institute email address as well, at least until his very recent ejection from Chava Energy. In practice, Goldes made continual use of Aesop Institute to bring investors to Chava Energy, which for five years has based its pretenses on nearly all the same fraudcraft used by Goldes at Aesop Institute. The common fraudcraft included the fraudcraftings of pretended development of water-fueled “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, of generators supposedly powered by Zero Point Energy, of “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor” energy storage systems, and of strictly ambient heat engines – along with endless false claims that these concepts were currently being “prototyped,” and would soon provide wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels.
For five years, Hagen Ruff allowed Mark Goldes, a Co-founder as well as a Chief Officer of Chava Energy, not only to use his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address to solicit loans to Goldes’ so-called “Aesop Institute,” but simultaneously to solicit loans to Aesop Institute and investments in Chava Energy in the course of discussions and communications with prospects who had reached Goldes by way of aesopinstitute. In effect, Ruff allowed Aesop Institute to become a fund-raising extension of Chava Energy. Starting in 2009, if not before, Goldes posted thousands of fraudulent comments advertising the aesopinstitute website and promoting the Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings on dozens of different websites. On Huffington Post alone, as the user “Overtone,” he posted over three thousand such comments. When people contacted Goldes after visiting the aesopinstitute website, they would learn from Goldes not only about Aesop Institute but also about Chava Energy, and Goldes would solicit loans to Aesop Institute or investment in Chava Energy, whichever the prospect preferred, at the same time. This was his standard practice for years. By allowing this entangling of Aesop Institute with Chava Energy LLC, Ruff has incurred responsibility not only for the false and fraudulent pretenses of Chava Energy, but for those of Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” as well. For this reason, although neither the Kenneth Rauen strictly ambient heat engine pretense nor the Boris Kondrashov self-powered turbine pretense have been directly used or presented by Chava Energy, as they have by Aesop Institute, they still deserve full recognition within the ensemble of Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings.
For five years since it was founded, Chava Energy LLC tried to promote itself chiefly by means of false and fraudulent claims and pretenses, that it was developing “revolutionary energy breakthroughs,” including “Fractional Hydrogen” engines utilizing nonexistent states of hydrogen, magical Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and magnetic generators supposedly harnessing Zero Point Energy.
An “MPI Overview And Summary” produced by MPI in late 2008 actually lists Hagen Ruff as the Chief Executive Officer of MPI, as well as a Director of MPI; Mark Goldes, who had been the CEO of MPI for two decades, is listed only as Chairman. This document also shows that a major component 0f the Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft was already well developed in 2008: namely, the fraudulent pretense that the worthless “revolutionary breakthroughs” claimed by Goldes and Ruff could provide alternatives to fossil fuels and thereby shift the global economy “from one dependent on fossil fuels to one that exists on clean, fuel-free, distributed power” and thereby “help offset the consequences of global warming.” At the time when Hagen Ruff, as CEO of MPI, allowed this and many similar statements to be included in the 2008 “MPI Overview,” MPI was claiming among its “breakthroughs” all but one of the seven fraudcraftings – all but Kondrashov’s self-powered air compressor, which
Goldes discovered in 2013. Ruff and Goldes knew perfectly well that not one of MPI’s six claimed “breakthroughs” represented anything more than an empty pretense.
If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?
In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.
We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen” generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also false and dishonest in various ways.
The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava Energy LLC and Aesop Institute since 2009.
If there had ever been any chance at all that Chava Energy LLC could be transformed into an honest and honorable company despite its five-year specialization in fraudcraft, that chance was wiped out by Hagen Ruff’s most recent communications, in which he embarked on some brand new pretenses, no less ludicrous than his fraudcraft of “Fractional Hydrogen.” He now wants to pretend that his very active Co-founder, Mark Goldes, the very same person who has been his Chief Liar for five years, was actually never a part of Chava Energy, at all! And he also now wants to pretend that none of Chava Energy’s fraudcraftings came from Mark Goldes or MPI – even though, in fact, they all did – every one of them.
http://physicsinspector.wordpress.com/category/goldes-ruff-fraudcraft/

]]>
Comment on U.S. to Impose Huge Taxes on Chinese Solar Panels by jmoffitt36http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/06/05/chinese-solar-panels-imported-u-s-face-enormous-tariffs/#comment-41877 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:57:19 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=47847#comment-41877 Hey there’s no Green in Old Glory, Just Red White and Blue, but there is sure lot of Green in the Fat pockets of the 1% and Greedy Politicians.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41869 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:18:41 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41869 trique024 Bob Wallace

That video is over an hour long.  

Right now Tesla is stating 170 miles in 30 minutes.  That’s 64% in 30 minutes.

Did I claim 80% in 20 minutes for the Tesla or 80% of a generic 200 mile range EV in 20 minutes?  If I specifically said “Tesla”, I apologize.

The Tesla/Panasonic batteries are not the only team in the game.  The Toshiba SCiB used in the Honda FIT 

“Charged with the highest current available with CHAdeMO*1, widely seen as the emerging standard for fast charging EV, an SCiB™ reaches about 80 percent of full capacity in some 15 minutes, about 50% in 10 minutes and about 25% in 5 minutes – half the times of a typical lithium-ion battery charged under the same conditions. The SCiB™ also generates little heat while recharging, eliminating the need for power to cool the battery module.”

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2011_06/pr1603.htm

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41868 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:06:05 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41868 Mick Segal Bob Wallace LoneWolffe Ladson

Thanks for the best laugh of the afternoon.

Are you grownup enough to recognize the higher cost of operating a FCEV vs. an EV?

I fully realize that a couple car companies are likely to start selling FCEVs in a couple of years.   Good for them.  Then we’ll get some real world experience with how they work and what they cost.

The question is whether then can get their costs significantly below that of EVs.  The market isn’t going to pay the same or more for a car that costs more than twice as much to operate.

There’s also a question of whether EV makers can bring an affordable 150-200 mile range EV to market.  If they can’t, then FCEVs might win based on longer range.

My guess is that we will have affordable 200 mile range EVs well before we’ll see FCEVs under $50k.  If you wish to guess differently, that’s your privilege. 

BTW, did you hear that Musk is talking about marketing a 500 mile range EV?

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41867 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 22:40:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41867 Bob Wallace LoneWolffe Ladson Hey B O B… Do you even READ the responses?  It is pretty obvious you have a closed mind to what is happening with respect to hydrogen, fuel cells and FCV’s … Gee Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Linde, Air Products, GE and the rest of the billion dollar companies have no idea about the benefits of fuel cell efficiencies and are wasting their time and money right?   Don’t respond because I will delete and move on.   Tired of reading your BS!  If you think this isn’t going to happen you are dead wrong!  It’s already happening and there is nothing you can do about it!!  Grow up and try doing a little research before you comment!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41866 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 22:34:30 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41866 Bob Wallace trique024

“Interesting.  I have no passion for Tesla or Musk in the sense that I worship/love/whatever them to the extent that I am willing to disregard facts.”

Yet… you keep going around saying you can ‘supercharge’ your Tesla to 80% in ~20 minutes.

But… if you watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPeequUD4s 

you will see, he doesn’t get to 160 miles (80% charge) until 46 minutes through the video.  That’s 45 minutes after he plugged that bad boy in…..

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41865 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 22:29:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41865 Bob Wallace

Eleven years old, Bob.  Eleven.  Glad to be your peer though.  :-)

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41864 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:21:02 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41864 trique024 Bob Wallace

You’re what, 12 years old?

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41862 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:57:31 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41862 trique024 Bob Wallace

Interesting.  I have no passion for Tesla or Musk in the sense that I worship/love/whatever them to the extent that I am willing to disregard facts.

I think that FCEVs are a possible route off fossil fuels, but I recognize both their positives and their negatives.  And do the same with EVs.  I could be wrong, but I think my opinions are driven by facts, not emotion or desire.  I don’t believe that you would be able to find a single incident of me talking about ‘fool cell’ or a ‘compliance car’.   (Actually it would be foolish to spend many, many millions creating a FCEV for compliance reasons when one could cobble together an EV for a lot less.)

Are you willing to overlook the fact that the Tesla is pretty much the safest car ever made?  That’s it a great job of car design, aside from its propulsion system?  Those things have nothing to do with EV vs. PHEV, but they are real and I think Elon made a very excellent decision to make not only a long range EV, but a world class automobile.

I don’t have a count on the number of US utilities offering TOU metering, both both PG&E and PG do off TOU and they are large utility companies.  

You seem to think that people should not point out that the Emperor is naked when FCEVs are the emperor.  If you can’t look at the facts without getting your bloomers in a bunch then you might find it more pleasant to stay out of FCEV/EV discussions.  Facts are going to continue to raise their nasty heads and spoil your pudding.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41861 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:10:19 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41861 Bob Wallace 

This is a perfect example of those conspiracy theories;

” It is a continuation of control of the fuel market by the oil companies…….”

Hahaha I LOVE IT!

Quick, where is Alex.  WHY HAS HE NOT JUMPED ALL OVER THIS!?  I mean, this is trillion dollar market kind of conspiracy.  I bet him and Elon would make great friends.  Elon could frequent the show!  He could help get the rest of the crazies in the country on board with you guys.  That will surely help ‘debunk’ hydrogen if everybody could just know, it’s all a grand plan from the oil companies!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41860 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:04:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41860 Bob Wallace trique024

My passion for fuel cell vehicles is no more or less passionate than yours for Tesla and Musk.  The difference Bob; I am not partial to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Ford, General Motors, Nissan, or Hyundai.  I think they are all wise, and you would have to literally be a hardcore conspiracy theorist to go around trying to make claims such as ‘its just a marketing ploy’ or that ‘they all work for the oil companies’ and ‘it’s just a way to keep the status quo of having filling stations’ .  

Pretty much every time you hear somebody talking about a fuel cell vehicle and they start calling it a ‘fool cell’ or a ‘compliance car’, they will almost without fail stray their comments to how the Model S is ‘the safest car ever made’ or that it’s the ‘worlds best car’ and that ‘there is nothing that compares’  

Sometimes it takes a few days, but boy, I tell you, any time you find any news for hydrogen, here comes the Valley mob of Muskrats yielding their charging cords, superchargers, and their ‘e-miles’ ready to do everything they can to try and convince people that Hydrogen is ‘dirty’, or that it uses ’5 times more energy’ than plugging in.  

As to TOU metering, not much of that happening in the US.  But in Ontario (where they are doing limited testing with it) there’s also other news coming from their grid operators (in an attempt to help balance things out, like you were talking about)
Independent Electricity System Operator Selects Hydrogenics Corporation for Supply of 2 Megawatt Energy Storage Facility in Ontario
Jul 25 14
Hydrogenics Corporation announced that it has been selected as a Preferred Respondent by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) for Ontario in its procurement for Grid Energy Storage. This Power-to-Gas project will deliver 2MW of storage capacity and be located in the Greater Toronto Area. The company will supply the facility’s next-generation PEM electrolyzers and is partnering with Enbridge Inc. to develop, build and operate the energy storage facility to provide regulation services to the IESO under contract.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41859 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:44:02 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41859 trique024 Ladson Bob Wallace

And every one of those scientists will tell you that it takes an appreciable amount of energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen.  And that it takes more energy to compress the hydrogen enough to make it transportable in a vehicle.

No one is arguing that it is not possible to make green hydrogen.  The argument is:

1)  “Clean energy” hydrogen FCEVs would cost more than 2x as much per mile to operate than EVs.

2) Because clean energy hydrogen is expensive what will happen is that people will run their H2 FCEVs of reformulated methane.  Most people will not be willing to pay extra for clean H2 as long as our affordable NG supply lasts.  That means unnecessary CO2 emissions.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41857 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:26:13 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41857 Ladson Bob Wallace 

Lad,

I love your quote, you should read it while considering yourself, not others.  It’s not very ‘buddhist’ of you to cast judgement on others, especially in attempt to try and size somebody down.  

Here’s where you invite critical thinkers to object to your senseless rants;

“The glaring error in the calculations is the assumption Hydrogen is created by green windmills…that’s a PR image creation.  Hydrogen is produced by oil companies reforming fossil fuel and then compressing it to greater than 10,000 psi.  It is a continuation of control of the fuel market by the oil companies……..” wind-power-generated hydrogen fuel”…..PR bologna!  ”

Meanwhile, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (a place much more important than you could ever dream of being) they have a working Hydrogen fueling station that is solely powered off of wind.  These very intelligent and accredited scientists are working extraordinarily hard to help create a sustainable, working model, for a clean and renewable fuel source.  When people like yourself make such disrespectful comments to their efforts and actual achievements, I would hope the average person who has any sense on the issue would stand up and defend their efforts against your senseless, Musk-rat rhetoric.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41856 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:23:32 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41856 Ladson Bob Wallace trique024

EVs are likely to be a huge boon for new wind farms.  In the US onshore tends to blow harder at night when demand is lower.  High supply and low demand means low prices.  In fact, ‘always-on’ generation such as nuclear and coal will bid very low in order to avoid shutting down (they can’t restart quickly).  This really cuts profits for wind turbines.

Adding lots of EVs and their need to charge only a few hours per night means a new, responsive market for onshore wind.  If charging is done as dispatchable loads then EVs can suck up any surplus power and create a revenue stream that will bring additional profits to wind farms.  Which will bring more turbines on line.  And provide more cheap wind during the day to help reduce our electricity bills.

Actually I see EVs bringing a lot more wind and solar on line.  The dispatchable nature of EVs and their need to charge, on average less than three hours per day, means that they are ideal tools to help grid operators in integrating both wind and solar onto the grid.

About half of all US drivers already have a place to plug in when they park at night.  They will be useful for wind integration.  Many of the others may find it easiest to plug in during the day at work/school.  That would make them available for solar integration.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41855 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:28:03 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41855 Bob Wallace trique024 Ladson
Bob
Good Point; still hard to beat charging pure EVs directly off solar arrays for efficiency and independence from fossil fuels. 

tri
Your personal remarks add nothing to the information; please don’t try typing yourself important.  “There are no important people, just those who thank they are.”    Dalai Lama

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41854 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:26:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41854 trique024 Bob Wallace

Boy, you sure have some sort of deep emotional attachment to FCEVs, don’t you?  

Your personal problems aside, ever hear of TOU (time of use) metering?  Some utility companies already use TOU billing.  People pay more during high demand hours and less during low demand hours.

Do you understand load-shifting and its value to grid operators?  If so, can you grasp the value of have very large demand controllable by grid operators?  

We’re talking the ability to avoid expensive storage and dispatchable generation.  Grids will be more than happy to discount the cost of electricity to charge EVs if they can control the “when”.  And smart chargers would also provide smart metering so that differential rates can be charged for EV charging and normal building demand even with the same feed.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41853 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:17:02 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41853 Mick Segal Bob Wallace

Flaring is a climatic problem.  But the reason gas is flared, IIRC, is that the value of the gas lost does not cover the cost of capturing it and moving it to market.

We’d have to stop flaring based on EPA-type pollution regulations and that is not a solution outside US boarders.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41852 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:12:50 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41852 trique024 Ladson

Your CF (capacity factor) numbers are out of date, but that’s an aside.

Whatever the CF of wind, FCEVs would mean building over 2x as many as we would need for EVs.  If a single 3 MW turbine would power 60-70 FCEVs that same turbine would power around 150 EVs.

Building 2x as much generation means doubling the cost per mile to operate.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41851 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:08:16 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41851 LoneWolffe Bob Wallace Ladson

Yes, we certainly should be capturing and using the methane we can’t avoid producing.  But there almost certainly isn’t enough to power very many fuel cell vehicles.  At best sewage/landfill gas could provide a small portion of what would be needed for the 250,000 cars and light trucks we drive.  

Additionally, we probably need that methane for deep grid backup.  There are a few hours (literally a few hours) per year which we probably need to use gas turbines due to the cost of storage.  And there are industrial needs for methane.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41850 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:44:02 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41850 LoneWolffe Bob Wallace Ladson Found it… Here is the “Quad-Gen” link
Publication Date: Monday, March 24, 2014
Publication: The Wall Street Journal
Village Farms International, Inc., In Collaboration with Quadrogen Power Systems, Inc. and Fuel Cell Energy, Inc.Announces the First Ever $7.5 Million Quad-Genergation Energy Project.
http://www.villagefarms.com/AboutVillageFarms/NewsAndPress/Articles/fuelcellproject.aspx

also to note:  Found this also about the system…

Metal Producers / Using Fuel Cell Technology …  Every silver, brass, steel and copper manufacturer can drop costs dramatically soon… Here’s why: When industrial applications for the trigeneration DFC system that produces electricity, hydrogen and heat from natural gas, Industry is referring to a process known as “annealing” that gets HUGE benefits from trigen.  There is a demonstration unit currently installed at AcuPowder (they make copper and are based in NJ) in late 2012 after getting a $2.8 million DOE contract in 2010 to install it.
First off…  Annealing is a process used to produce certain metals and alloys. Most prominently silver, brass, steel and copper but there are many others. The reason AcuPowder signed on for the demonstration project is because these plants that use annealing use hydrogen in the process and it is normally shipped in (very costly). They also require an inert reducing gas along with the hydrogen. Normally these plants shipped in nitrogen for this purpose (again, very costly). What they are doing now is  they have retrofitted a normal 300 KW DFC fuel cell unit to produce the hydrogen needed along with electricity and heat. FCEL then had the exhaust CO2 from the fuel cell tested to see if it could be used in place of the inert nitrogen gas. Low and behold, AcuPowder say no difference in product quality when using CO2 instead of nitrogen. So they hooked the exhaust up to the furnaces to make a quad generation fuel cell that supplies electricity, heat, hydrogen and CO2 which are all used in this process. AcuPowder found that their facility used 50% less power and cut total utility and purchasing costs by 25%!! To top it off, all of these benefits came from a quiet DFC fuel cell that also makes much cleaner energy and gives reliable power to the facility.
However,  there is no such cost barrier to industrial customers who use annealing in their processes. The reason why is because all of these plants already have access to natural gas and the cost and time savings is so astronomical that the cost of the DFC fuel cell far out weighs the benefits as the fuel cell would pay itself back within a short time if overall utility and purchasing costs drop 25% as these are all very large factories which huge electric, heat and purchasing costs.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41849 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:35:50 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41849 LoneWolffe Bob Wallace Ladson Found this link recently … When a company like Linde gets involved it usually lends quite a bit of credibility to the scenario.  Just thought I would pass this along.  I hope to pass along the “Quad-Gen” System if I can find it… That’s when it gets really interesting … Making use of market grad C02!!!
Linde starts production line for fuel cell car “filling stations”http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/linde-autos-hydrogen-idINL6N0PP4EK20140714(Reuters) – German industrial gases maker Linde opened what it said was the world’s first production line for hydrogen fuelling stations on Monday, in a bid to boost support networks for eco-friendly cars.Fuel-cell cars, which compete with electric and hybrid vehicles in a race to capture environmentally conscious drivers, use a stack of cells that combine hydrogen with oxygen in the air to generate electricity.Their only emissions are water vapour and heat, but the technology has been held back by high costs and lack of infrastructure. Fuel-cell cars will go on sale starting at $70,000, and filling stations cost over $1 million to build.On the back of commercial launch announcements by Toyota and Hyundai and demand in Japan, Linde started up a production facility with an initial annual capacity of 50 stations a year. Until now, it has built them one by one.The company announced an order for 28 stations from Japanese gas trading company Iwatani, which put the first of its Linde stations into operation near Osaka on Monday, the first commercial hydrogen fuelling station in Japan. “It’s a chicken-and-egg situation,” Linde executive board member Aldo Belloni told Reuters on the sidelines of the opening ceremony in Vienna.Belloni declined to say how much Linde had invested since starting its fuel-cell research and development in 1988, centred in Vienna, but said it was “very much”.Fuel-cell cars can run five times longer than electric cars and fill a tank 10 times as fast.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth One – Fuel Cell Vehicles “Burn” Hydrogen by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/22/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-one-fuel-cell-vehicles-burn-hydrogen/#comment-41846 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:18:39 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48640#comment-41846 Ben-

Great pieces on hydrogen, glad you can help clarify with people that we are not simply replacing gas, we are actually going all electric, with hydrogen battery system

It should be noted though, we need to avoid combustion at large, all together for one main reason:  The ambient air naturally has lots of O2 and nitogen.  When have combustion, we inevitably have nitrogen oxides that form, and that’s definitely smog grade pollution! Fuel cells are the only real way to go….

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41845 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:06:10 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41845 Bob Wallace

Only electric companies (brokers) get discounts at night from wholesale energy providers.  The home-owner pays the exact same amount, whether they are running their meter during the day, or night. This is how the electric companies are actually making money.

On top of that, most people have tiered electricity rates to help influence low usage, to essentially keep an out-dated grid still up and running.  Every watt hour you use to charge a BEV is going to be added to your most expensive electricity tier, and potentially bump you into higher ones.

I know here in Texas, the first 500KWhs are cheap, but once you’re pulling over 1500KWhs / month, you’re rate has more than doubled.

Now on the other hand, if a hydrogen generator station gets an upgraded direct connect to nearby transmission, then suddenly the price of electricity will drop to 3-4 cents / KWH for the H2 station, day or night.

Bob, I cant help but ask – Is Elon Musk a good friend of yours?  It’s amazing how consistently your are found, pretty much anywhere, talking crap about hydrogen.  In my eyes, you are officially anti-science, right there with the people who think the world is only 6,500 years old!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by trique024http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41844 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:53:26 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41844 Ladson 
You’re definitely NOT the first person to support FCEV’s because they are clean.  Many people beat you to that.  But thanks for acting so righteous, I’m sure you’ve done the math on how much resources it will require to make 60 million BEV’s a year.

Just a courteous correction to you, many of the fueling stations getting built today are simply electrolyzer and pump pairings.  In other words, it just draws electricity off the grid, and then pumps H2 into your car.  Supply that however you may, bet let me give you a basic understanding of how much wind it will take to power X number of H2 vehicles.

-Wind power averages 26.9% (in US) over a 24 hour period.
-New wind turbines run at 3MW full capacity, or an average of 807KW at 26.9%
-That’s an average of 19,368 KWhs / day
-Current electrolysis generators us 50-58KWh of electricity per kg/H2 produced.
-To fill a new Toyota FCEV (5.5 kg) it will take about 275-319 KWh
-The single wind generator will successfully fill 60-70 vehicles / day

-The vehicles will get an average of 65-81 Miles / KG, crediting your 100% renewable wind turbine with 3,900-4,860 miles produced each and every day.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41842 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:17:12 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41842 LoneWolffe Bob Wallace Mick Segal It’s a “closed” system at these municipal wastewater plants… so the CH4 is controlled – contained.  Google:  Jack Brouwer Tri-Gen
The man know’s what he is talking about!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41841 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:13:34 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41841 Bob Wallace Mick Segal here is some math… keep in mind this is the first system of its kind and uses a small 350kw fuel cell unit… AND Mr. Jack Brouwer has said that he can refine this same system (using MW units with same amount of feed stock now) to increase production by a factor of 10!  Impressive… 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-14/sewage-derived-fuel-powers-hyundai-california-green-dream.html

There’s a limit to how much fuel waste-treatment plants can provide, he said. Installing similar hydrogen-making systems at most of California’s major waste-treatment plants would generate enough hydrogen to power about 10 percent of all the cars on the state’s roads, Brouwer said.
“We use an incredible amount of fuel for transportation, and this particular source gets you just part of the way there.”
The rest could be supplied by converting conventional natural gas, until hydrogen sources with even less carbon become available, Castillo said.
“There’s lots of natural gas, so that’s going to take care of most of the fuel,” Castillo said. “It’s also true that we can get some of the hydrogen from waste we all produce every day.”*******************
This is still a lot of cars and lets be honest ICE’s will be around for a very very long time but relieving some pressure on oil / gasoline / electrical grid ect…  and sending our kids to some middle eastern desert to secure oil fields is BS!  We need to get with the program!  ASAP!
AND STOP “FLARING” ENERGY INTO THIN AIR!!!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41840 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:05:46 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41840 Bob Wallace Mick Segal We are talking about Fuel Cell VEHICLES!  NOT LATE TO THE GAME… Hence “World’s FIRST”… The UCSD unit is made by the same company that provides the Orange County wastewater facility unit.  The UCSD unit does not dispense hydrogen to cars.  Also the Orange County wastewater unit is a 350kw unit… Wait until they use the 1MW’s way more Hydrogen… 
BTW – I believe Gills Onions, Sierra Nevada Brewer were both before UCSD.
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/applications/renewable-biogas/

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Four – Hydrogen Fuel Storage is Dangerous by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/25/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-four-hydrogen-fuel-storage-dangerous/#comment-41839 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:45:23 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48692#comment-41839 LoneWolffe Mick Segal How about all those oil / nat gas wells “flaring” ?  What a waste that is!  Just read this ridiculous article that said the Nat Gas industry is going to implement NEW RULES about not flaring so much gas and should be implemented NO LATER THAN 2020!  What a bunch of BS!!!
NO MORE ATTORNEY / LOBBYISTS!  VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS … ASAP
Rep. NY Charles Rangel –  running for his 22nd term in office?  What a JOKE!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41838 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:40:43 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41838 Note:  Same system “Tri-Gen” / There is also a “Quad-Gen” System!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-14/sewage-derived-fuel-powers-hyundai-california-green-dream.html

There’s a limit to how much fuel waste-treatment plants can provide, he said. Installing similar hydrogen-making systems at most of California’s major waste-treatment plants would generate enough hydrogen to power about 10 percent of all the cars on the state’s roads, Brouwer said.
“We use an incredible amount of fuel for transportation, and this particular source gets you just part of the way there.”
The rest could be supplied by converting conventional natural gas, until hydrogen sources with even less carbon become available, Castillo said.
“There’s lots of natural gas, so that’s going to take care of most of the fuel,” Castillo said. “It’s also true that we can get some of the hydrogen from waste we all produce every day.”
***********
So they are saying that the same system can be used to convert nat. gas also…  And to see all the flaring being done with those gas wells???  What a waste!
Also… Brouwer has said that he plans on re-fining this system to get a 10x increase of hydrogen with same amount of bio-solid now used!  Impressive!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41837 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:01:50 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41837 Bob Wallace LoneWolffe Ladson True enough (see my other response), but recovering ANY of that lingering CH4 would be better than just letting it go to the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide! As far as how MUCH is available, that is another question to be calculated.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41836 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:58:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41836 Bob Wallace Mick Segal I have to wonder, however, are there any measurements on exactly how much methane is produced at landfills and sewage treatment plants? Considering that CH4 is about 20x stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, at least using it will significantly reduce GHG emissions. If we can get some useable H2 fuel out of the deal, all the better. How MUCH H2 fuel, however, I’m not sure.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41835 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:58:32 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41835 LoneWolffe Ladson

Just be careful to not overestimate the amount available.

Think  of it this way.  The amount of methane producing material added to the sewage system and landfill per day per person is not a great deal more than what they throw away and poop.  And only a small amount of that total mass converts to methane.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Four – Hydrogen Fuel Storage is Dangerous by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/25/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-four-hydrogen-fuel-storage-dangerous/#comment-41834 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:55:25 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48692#comment-41834 Mick Segal It’s a win-win if we can expand R&D in landfill and sewer gas, which are already responsible for uncounted methane emissions. Why not USE those emissions to make a useable fuel?
Keep spreading the word!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41833 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:54:17 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41833 Ladson LoneWolffe I couldn’t agree with you more! Landfill and sewer gas is another great source, eliminating already-existing methane emissions. two birds with one stone!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41832 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:30:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41832 Mick Segal Bob Wallace Actually Orange is late to the game.  There’s been a sewage -> fuel cell system running at UCSD for a while.

Now, do you imagine there is enough methane capturable  to fuel even thousands of FCEVs, let alone millions?

It’s like the old biodiesel from french fry oil.  Sounds great until you start to do the math.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41831 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:58:21 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41831 LoneWolffe Ladson Tnx for the info; BTW, I would be the first to support FCVs if they can get away from fossil fuels.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41830 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:46:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41830 Bob Wallace Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.
“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41829 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:44:49 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41829 Hydrogen Fuel is not at all expensive especially when their are vast amounts in the country’s Municipal Wastewater Facility’s everywhere!  See below what is going on!

Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.

“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.

2.8MW fuel cell using biogas now operating; Largest PPA of its kind in North America

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/october/28-mw-fuel-cell-using-biogas-now-operating-largest-ppa-of-its-kind-in-north-america

****************
also…

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/pump-it-up-we-refuel-a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle-hydrogen-filling-stations-are-still-rare-page-3Will Hydrogen Be Cheaper Than Gasoline? Who Knows?The pump we used quoted the price of hydrogen at $5 per kilogram. The actual cost for pump hydrogen in the future is difficult to estimate with any accuracy, though, since the volume and infrastructure aren’t yet mature. Balch cites studies that foresee the price of hydrogen leveling off between $2 and $4 per kilogram, and he points out that a kilogram of H2 typically provides more range than a gallon of gas. Once the price of hydrogen does come down, it should carry a cost per mile that’s similar to or better than that of gasoline. Better yet, once established, the price is not expected to fluctuate with the same volatility as that of gasoline.So although the process of pumping hydrogen into a fuel-cell vehicle is pretty simple (and getting simpler), the process of pumping hydrogen into our infrastructure could be one of the great challenges of our generation. At least we can look forward to keeping our hands clean.The ix35 Fuel Cell is equipped with a 100 kW electric motor, allowing it to reach a maximum speed of 160 km/h (99 mph). Two hydrogen storage tanks, with a total capacity of 5.64 kg, enable the vehicle to travel a total of 594 km (369 miles) on a single charge, and it can reliably start in temperatures as low as -20 degrees Celsius.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Four – Hydrogen Fuel Storage is Dangerous by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/25/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-four-hydrogen-fuel-storage-dangerous/#comment-41826 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:30:40 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48692#comment-41826 Nice information here about Hydrogen…  Just read another article on the harsh damage that fracking causes!  Wow!  But hey nobody seems to know what they are injecting right next to all of these water tables… Companies are not required to say???  What a joke!  That’s all you need to know.

This country needs to gets it congress/senate in order.  Charles Rangel Rep. NY going for his 22nd term in office!  Pathetic!  TWENTY TWO TERMS IN OFFICE???  And people wonder why nothing changes.  NO MORE ATTORNEY / LOBBYISTS.

Found this link and continue to try and spread the news that there is so much energy in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants around the country that its really mind boggling that we are acting so slow on this.  Just want to pass it along… 

Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.

“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.

2.8MW fuel cell using biogas now operating; Largest PPA of its kind in North America

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/october/28-mw-fuel-cell-using-biogas-now-operating-largest-ppa-of-its-kind-in-north-america

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41825 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:31:32 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41825 Bob Wallace
>>”The http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/17/hyundai-ix35-fuel-cell-vehicle-gets-80-mpge/ fuel cell vehicle, on the other hand, recently tested as high as 80 MPGe, which rounds out to just 6.3 ¢/mi.”
>An EV charging with 12c/kWh electricity and using 0.3 kWh/mile costs 3.6c/mile.  (EVs will likely charge off peak and charge as dispatchable loads which will gain them less expensive rates.)
True, I’d like to find some cost comparisons between FCVs and BEVs, but this was only a comparison between FCVs and HEVs.
>>”Considering that wind-power-generated hydrogen fuel isn’t even the cheapest method,”

>The cheapest source of hydrogen is reformulated natural gas.  There’s a couple of significant problems with using NG.  

>First, we end up pumping more carbon into our atmosphere and drive climate change faster.  The cost of dealing with climate change is going to be massive.  Right now southern Florida is having to rework its water and sewage systems in order to deal with salt water intrusion from rising sea levels.

Smart thinking would be to add those costs back into the price of NG H2 rather than think it cheap.

Second, natural gas supplies are limited.  Based on 2010 consumption levels we could run out of reasonably priced NG in 20 years.  Now that we’re increasing our burn rate (electricity, commercial vehicles, exporting) we are going to hit the limit sooner.  Any cost savings by FCEVs could be temporary and short-lived.

Trust me, I am NOT condoning using natural gas reformation as a viable source of hydrogen fuel. True, it’s “cheap” in one way, but sickeningly expensive in another way. NREL’s data says renewable hydrogen fuel, via wind- and solar-power is entirely doable. (Will address that one in a future post, so stay tuned.)

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41824 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:24:16 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41824 “The http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/17/hyundai-ix35-fuel-cell-vehicle-gets-80-mpge/ fuel cell vehicle, on the other hand, recently tested as high as 80 MPGe, which rounds out to just 6.3 ¢/mi.”

An EV charging with 12c/kWh electricity and using 0.3 kWh/mile costs 3.6c/mile.  (EVs will likely charge off peak and charge as dispatchable loads which will gain them less expensive rates.)

“Considering that wind-power-generated hydrogen fuel isn’t even the cheapest method,”

The cheapest source of hydrogen is reformulated natural gas.  There’s a couple of significant problems with using NG.  

First, we end up pumping more carbon into our atmosphere and drive climate change faster.  The cost of dealing with climate change is going to be massive.  Right now southern Florida is having to rework its water and sewage systems in order to deal with salt water intrusion from rising sea levels.

Smart thinking would be to add those costs back into the price of NG H2 rather than think it cheap.

Second, natural gas supplies are limited.  Based on 2010 consumption levels we could run out of reasonably priced NG in 20 years.  Now that we’re increasing our burn rate (electricity, commercial vehicles, exporting) we are going to hit the limit sooner.  Any cost savings by FCEVs could be temporary and short-lived.

]]>
Comment on Big Oil Behind Blocking Use of Ethanol? Say It Isn’t So! by Ed Higdonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/big-oil-behind-blocking-use-ethanol-say-isnt/#comment-41823 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:04:17 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48511#comment-41823 Too funny. Of course, a technician who specializes on Hybrid autos would post something on a biased “green” website. Unfortunately, what he neglected to mention is the FACT that the AUTO MAKERS specify the MAXIMUM allowed ethanol to use in their own vehicles because anything higher will likely cause mechanical failure (engine manufacturer and E10 warnings). Even Toyota specifies the majority of the vehicles they sell to operate efficiently on E10 or E15 max (EPA.gov). The EPA makes the statement that E85 produces approximately 20-30% decrease in fuel economy and it is pretty close to accurate. I am also a veteran mechanic, but I work on every other make and model, excluding hybrids, which are not built the same as the majority of other vehicles, but I do work on automotive unleaded, diesels, marine, and small engines. At any rate, I’m sure “big oil” loves to keep the money rolling in, but I’d rather pay them for pure gasoline than to have to buy a new $362.00 carburetor for my lawnmower every year, or worse, a new lawnmower. What our “hybrid” mechanic who works for Toyota also made no mention of is the damages to fuel systems caused by ethanol. Toyota’s own “i-force” V8 has the susceptibility to have the throttle body become gummed up and stick and the maximum percentage to prevent VOIDING the Toyota warranty is 10%. Well, Toyota’s techs will make more money if they get more vehicles in the shop to repair. After all, they do still pay commission, right? I’ve arrived at hard-working customer’s houses and had to advise them that they needed to replace the entire engine of vehicles before because the carburetor float gummed up in the open position and the fuel filled up the cylinders and bled into the engine oil. They knew nothing about it, but suspected a fuel leak, so they put more in the tank and cranked it up, only to lock up the engine. Even 10% ethanol, when stored, separates and begins the formation of acids which eat away at the metals in the fuel system. The Ford Model T was not a vehicle designed like today’s automobiles and it cannot be compared. Most of today’s cars have aluminum blocks, heads, or whatever to keep a lower weight and therefore get better fuel economy. Aluminum does not fare well with acid or any form of alcohol. Investigate the issues Ford’s Triton engine has had with the throttle body gumming up. Most of the time, it cannot be repaired and costs a pretty penny to replace. Also, you can feel free to check out the record of mechanical repairs made to engines running on alcohol (heck, take a look at alcohol eating race engines). It’s not pretty. Sure, the fuel may cost a little less, but the big money is in engine rebuilds and engine replacements. Ethanol gums everything up because it can ONLY be manufactured from plants that contain natural sugars (do your research). Anyone ever spilled a coke on an electrical switch in their car or even on the floor at home? Sugar cannot be completely removed from anything. It can only be dissipated. High fructose corn syrup works just like any other sugar. it makes things stick if it is allowed to dry out even once. Keep your gas tanks full or you’ll end up purchasing a new fuel pump and sending unit, but if you let it sit for any real time, drain it all or you can either buy your own parts, or pay Mr. Hybrid Toyota Tech to fix it for you. I was ranked the highest in customer satisfaction of any small engine service technician in the southeastern US because I advised my customers honestly. This may look “biased”, but I could care less what “big oil” takes home because I’m not an investor. I care if someone’s car won’t start in the morning because my job has always been to make sure what I did was right the first time and if it was something that could be prevented, I would always advise my customers. It’s their hard-earned money and they still come back.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41822 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:28:17 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41822 Ladson I’m going to tackle that one in a future post, but according to the http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production_cost_analysis.html , renewable hydrogen fuel is within our grasp. natural gas reformation would be cheaper, but also emissions intensive.
the real question is, how do we make the transition?

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Three – Hydrogen Fuel is Expensive by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/24/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-three-hydrogen-fuel-expensive/#comment-41821 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:35:42 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48674#comment-41821 The glaring error in the calculations is the assumption Hydrogen is created by green windmills…that’s a PR image creation.  Hydrogen is produced by oil companies reforming fossil fuel and then compressing it to greater than 10,000 psi.  It is a continuation of control of the fuel market by the oil companies……..” wind-power-generated hydrogen fuel”…..PR bologna!

]]>
Comment on Karpen’s Pile: A Battery That Produces Energy Continuously Since 1950 Exists in Romanian Museum by andyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/12/25/karpen-pile/#comment-41820 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:16:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=16399#comment-41820 C U N T – correctly spelled.

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Two – Fuel Cell Vehicles are Expensive by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-two-fuel-cell-vehicles-expensive/#comment-41819 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:10:38 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48657#comment-41819 A FCV is a BEV with a FC electric generator;  I see the FC as a possible replacement for the current hybrids that use ICEs because supposedly FCs are more efficient.  But, with the introduction of a traction battery that is low-cost, light, and has a high enough energy density to meet the range requires of individual drivers, the FC and its added weight, complication and cost of two power units and dangerous on-board flammable fuel are not needed.

Additionally, hydrogen, the FCs fuel, is currently a product of reforming fossil fuels, natural gas or gasoline on-board the car.  No other methodology for creating hydrogen for the mass market has been developed.  Water electrolysis has so far not been proven for mass use.  A society that depends on Fuel Cells continues to depend on oil companies with their aggressive mining processes and fuel pricing.

]]>
Comment on $10,000 to Hack the Tesla Model S, No Winners So Far by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/10000-hack-tesla-model-s-winners-far/#comment-41818 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:31:40 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48654#comment-41818 disasters in the making

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Two – Fuel Cell Vehicles are Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-two-fuel-cell-vehicles-expensive/#comment-41816 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:53:35 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48657#comment-41816 Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.
Google:
“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”
“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.
Also nice advertisement of the Hyundai “Tuscon” FCV.  Google:  Hyundai “Tuscon” Fuel Cell Vehicle.$499 per month w/ FREE FUEL & FREE MAINTENANCE (of course for people who live in the designated parameters) … Impressive though… Emitting only Pure Water out of the tailpipe!!!
I think fuel cell technology solves a few problems at once and nobody ever talks about the Cost $$$ in health care savings with respect to the air we breathe?  $$$ BILLIONS!!! if not $Trillions…
Nice article!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Two – Fuel Cell Vehicles are Expensive by weaponhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-two-fuel-cell-vehicles-expensive/#comment-41815 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:30:30 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48657#comment-41815 Incorrect. The DOE study looks at POWER output of a fuel cell stack. You can’t compare power output of a fuel cell vs energy storage of a battery cost. They are not 1 to 1 comparison.

]]>
Comment on Oceans Reduce the Rate of Climate Change But Only Temporarily, Study Says by KelfinPlanckhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/04/08/oceans-reduce-climate-change/#comment-41812 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:54:45 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=35849#comment-41812 After founding Magnetic Power Inc in the mid-eighties, Mark Goldes and MPI proceeded to develop most of the fraudcraftings which would serve as Goldes’ offerings in fraudcraft for the next thirty years, not only at MPI, but also at Chava Energy LLC, and at his so-called “Aesop Institute.” Goldes’ partnership with Hagen Ruff, the other Co-founder (as well as CEO) of Chava Energy LLC, gave the Goldes-MPI fraudcraft a new lease on life, and accordingly it may now be termed most properly the “Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft.” For the past five years or more, while serving as a Co-founder and a Chief Officer of Chava Energy LLC, Goldes used his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address as his Aesop Institute email address as well, at least until his very recent ejection from Chava Energy. In practice, Goldes made continual use of Aesop Institute to bring investors to Chava Energy, which for five years has based its pretenses on nearly all the same fraudcraft used by Goldes at Aesop Institute. The common fraudcraft included the fraudcraftings of pretended development of water-fueled “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, of generators supposedly powered by Zero Point Energy, of “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor” energy storage systems, and of strictly ambient heat engines – along with endless false claims that these concepts were currently being “prototyped,” and would soon provide wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels.
For five years, Hagen Ruff allowed Mark Goldes, a Co-founder as well as a Chief Officer of Chava Energy, not only to use his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address to solicit loans to Goldes’ so-called “Aesop Institute,” but simultaneously to solicit loans to Aesop Institute and investments in Chava Energy in the course of discussions and communications with prospects who had reached Goldes by way of aesopinstitute. In effect, Ruff allowed Aesop Institute to become a fund-raising extension of Chava Energy. Starting in 2009, if not before, Goldes posted thousands of fraudulent comments advertising the aesopinstitute website and promoting the Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings on dozens of different websites. On Huffington Post alone, as the user “Overtone,” he posted over three thousand such comments. When people contacted Goldes after visiting the aesopinstitute website, they would learn from Goldes not only about Aesop Institute but also about Chava Energy, and Goldes would solicit loans to Aesop Institute or investment in Chava Energy, whichever the prospect preferred, at the same time. This was his standard practice for years. By allowing this entangling of Aesop Institute with Chava Energy LLC, Ruff has incurred responsibility not only for the false and fraudulent pretenses of Chava Energy, but for those of Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” as well. For this reason, although neither the Kenneth Rauen strictly ambient heat engine pretense nor the Boris Kondrashov self-powered turbine pretense have been directly used or presented by Chava Energy, as they have by Aesop Institute, they still deserve full recognition within the ensemble of Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings.
For five years since it was founded, Chava Energy LLC tried to promote itself chiefly by means of false and fraudulent claims and pretenses, that it was developing “revolutionary energy breakthroughs,” including “Fractional Hydrogen” engines utilizing nonexistent states of hydrogen, magical Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and magnetic generators supposedly harnessing Zero Point Energy.
An “MPI Overview And Summary” produced by MPI in late 2008 actually lists Hagen Ruff as the Chief Executive Officer of MPI, as well as a Director of MPI; Mark Goldes, who had been the CEO of MPI for two decades, is listed only as Chairman. This document also shows that a major component 0f the Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft was already well developed in 2008: namely, the fraudulent pretense that the worthless “revolutionary breakthroughs” claimed by Goldes and Ruff could provide alternatives to fossil fuels and thereby shift the global economy “from one dependent on fossil fuels to one that exists on clean, fuel-free, distributed power” and thereby “help offset the consequences of global warming.” At the time when Hagen Ruff, as CEO of MPI, allowed this and many similar statements to be included in the 2008 “MPI Overview,” MPI was claiming among its “breakthroughs” all but one of the seven fraudcraftings – all but Kondrashov’s self-powered air compressor, which
Goldes discovered in 2013. Ruff and Goldes knew perfectly well that not one of MPI’s six claimed “breakthroughs” represented anything more thanan empty pretense.
If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?
In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.
We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen”
generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also false and dishonest in various ways.
The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava Energy LLC and Aesop Institute since 2009.
If there had ever been any chance at all that Chava Energy LLC could be transformed into an honest and honorable company despite its five-year specialization in fraudcraft, that chance was wiped out by Hagen Ruff’s most recent communications, in which he embarked on some brand new pretenses, no less ludicrous than his fraudcraft of “Fractional Hydrogen.” He now wants to pretend that his very active Co-founder, Mark Goldes, the very same person who has been his Chief Liar for five years, was actually never a part of Chava Energy, at all! And he also now wants to pretend that none of Chava Energy’s fraudcraftings came from Mark Goldes or MPI – even though, in fact, they all did – every one of them.
http://intlphysicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/category/goldes-ruff-fraudcraft/

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth One – Fuel Cell Vehicles “Burn” Hydrogen by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/22/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-one-fuel-cell-vehicles-burn-hydrogen/#comment-41810 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:33:23 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48640#comment-41810 Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.

“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.

2.8MW fuel cell using biogas now operating; Largest PPA of its kind in North America

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/october/28-mw-fuel-cell-using-biogas-now-operating-largest-ppa-of-its-kind-in-north-america

Microsoft Backs Away From Grid

http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/11/20/microsoft-backs-away-slowly-from-the-grid/
Hyundai “Tuscon” Fuel Cell Vehicle$499 per month w/ Free Fuel & Free Maintenance from Hyundai!!! (pure water for exhaust)https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/
Toyota joins California Hydrogen Push in Station Funding – Bloomberghttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-01/california-awards-46-6-million-for-hydrogen-car-stations.html

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41808 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:49:21 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41808 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

“it’s about operating costs and performance.”

Electricity is cheaper than H2 made with electricity and gasoline/diesel.

EVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs are all EVs and have the battery/electric motor ability to accelerate quickly.  

Using H2, even as range extender fuel means creation of a H2 infrastructure.  That’s major capital that would have to be spent.  If we used H2 range extenders then the cost of H2 would have to be very high in order to cover the infrastructure.

Actually, I’d bet the ratio of long range driving days vs. lower distance days is lower with pickups.

Pickup trucks are less popular based what I’m seeing on the road – lots of four door sedans with no lids over their trunks.  Those things are not pickups in my book.  ;o)

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41807 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:07:36 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41807 Bob Wallace “Remember how Detroit gave their market to Japan because they couldn’t understand that many buyers wanted fuel efficiency and quality?”
That certainly is the popular account of what happened. 

While the consistent lack of quality was definitely an example of a business failure, it could be argued that it was mostly due to an approach that emphasized big advances over incremental gains. A bad process rather than a lack of effort or concern (at least to some degree).

But as far as letting Japanese automakers have the compact car segment, it wasn’t about a failure to listen so much as it was about profits. As you likely know, the hard cost of building a $15k economy car is only slightly lower than the hard cost of building a $50k large SUV…the R&D costs are basically the same from one engine to the next, one platform to the next, etc., the factories cost the same, the workers are paid the same, etc.

American automakers didn’t ignore consumer interest in small, efficient vehicles so much as they didn’t see much value in participating. SUVs and trucks generate considerably more profits (they always have), and that’s as good a reason as any to focus on that business.

But to the main point – Why are pickups and SUVs going to use fuel cell stacks when using gas or ethanol would be just as easy? – it’s about operating costs and performance. A truck with an electric powertrain is going to pull a trailer far better than an ICE, and that’s a selling point for truck/large SUV buyers. A truck with an FCV is also likely to have a lower operating cost (assuming gas prices don’t fall off a cliff), and that’s something truck buyers (particularly fleet buyers) care about. Finally, I’d argue that FCV pickups would be less costly up-front than the relatively exotic options that are currently gaining steam, like expensive twin-turbo direct injection engines, small diesels with expensive emissions control systems, all aluminum bodies, etc.

I’d also argue that pickups would be even more popular than they are now if someone could make the fuel costs more palatable.

In any case, I see FCV powered pickups being far more likely than BEV pickups in the future. ESPECIALLY if remote hydrogen generation systems become reasonably cost-effective (rural truck owners would LOVE the ability to generate their own fuel and would likely pay a premium).

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41806 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:00:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41806 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

It’s often the case that auto manufacturers are the last to know what the public wants.  Remember how Detroit gave their market to Japan because they couldn’t understand that many buyers wanted fuel efficiency and quality?

SUVs seem to be leaving us.  They’re being replaced with “crossovers”.

There’s another option for larger pickups – PHEVs with either a ICE of fuel cell range extender.  

But consider this further problem for H2 fuel cells.  If pickups drove 50% to 75% on electricity and cars moved to ~100% electricity, where is the market for H2 that would pay for the infrastructure?

Why wouldn’t we simply use something easier to market such as ethanol or gasoline?  We could tolerate ~12% of our driving with petroleum and still easily hit the 2050 40% to 70% CO2 emission decrease.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41805 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:51:15 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41805 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace Brian Keez

” a 50kWh battery pack is awfully small”

Tesla 265 miles with an 85 kWh pack.  3.1 miles per kWh.  50 x 3.1 = 155 miles, plus more miles due to less weight.

The ‘threshold of acceptability’ for an EV that can be reasonably driven all day long is around 175 miles, my guess.

Drive 175, charge 20 minutes, drive 155, charge, drive 155.  485 miles with an acceptable number of breaks.  More range would be welcome, but most people would consider that a reasonable range based  on fuel savings.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41804 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:45:45 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41804 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

I suppose it depends on how one defines “fully committed”.  

Companies that are selling EVs include not only Tesla and Nissan, but Ford, GM, Daimler, BYD (and a few other Chinese manufacturers), Fiat, BMW, Citroen, Mitsubishi,  Renault, and Volkswagen.   As well as some minor companies.

How many companies will be selling FCEVs in 2015?

Car companies are not the ones investing in battery research.  Battery companies are doing that.  Most car companies have already invested enough to produce at least one EV model.  

Musk is not doing battery research.  He’s building a massive battery plant (or plants) that will scale up current technology in order to bring prices down.  And he’s designing his plant(s) so that they can switch technologies as better batteries emerge.

I agree that most car manufacturers are holding back on EV manufacturing numbers.  They’re likely waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting of battery price reduction.  Nissan is the exception with their own battery plants.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41803 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:44:37 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41803 Bob Wallace As unbelievable as it seems, an ICE built on an established modular platform as a $3-4k cost all in (that includes amortizing R&D costs). The trick is to build hundreds of thousands of the same engines. That’s how you get the ridiculously low prices on all components, etc.

As for refill time (aka range anxiety) being a red herring, I’m not convinced. A lot of automakers seem to think it’s a deal breaker, and they’re in the business of determining car consumer preferences.

Finally, I haven’t mentioned this previously, but it’s incredibly important: Battery packs don’t seem like they’ll work for trucks and large SUVs. They offer too little range, they detract from the vehicle’s performance due to their considerable weight, and – most importantly – a payload ruins their performance. I can’t pull my boat with a BEV pickup, because I can’t get all the way to the reservoir and back without stopping for a charge.

Thus, even *if* BEVs are cost competitive with ICEs, they won’t work for trucks and SUVs without considerable improvements in energy density and cost reductions. A car buyer can get by with a 60kWh battery pack, but a Tahoe or F150 buyer is going to want 3-4 times that capacity…and the cost of that vehicle will be considerably more than a 100kW fuel cell stack and a couple of hydrogen storage tanks.

FCVs are definitely going to have a role in the future. The only question is, are they going to dominate all production (my guess) or are they just going to own half the market (trucks and SUVs).

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41802 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:34:35 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41802 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace Brian Keez

13,000 miles per year.  1,083 miles per month.  36 gallons of fuel with a 30 MPG vehicle.  $120 at $4/gallon.

$3k – $4k for the engine.  Plus fuel, cooling and exhaust systems?

” a 60kW fuel cell stack will cost $3000 or less by 2017 - assuming high production volumes (500k units, if I recall)” 

EV manufacturers have stated that once EVs reach the 500k units per year (or a bit higher) EV prices will drop to ICE levels.

I don’t think any of us can guarantee that EV or FCEV prices will drop to or below that of ICEs.  Both might.

As long as FCEVs don’t fall significantly below the price of EVs then fuel costs will kill them.  Refill time is a red herring.  For FCEVs to dominate they will have to be quite a bit lower priced, EVs are cheaper and more convenient to drive.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41801 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:34:04 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41801 Bob Wallace If this is truly the cost difference between fully charged and half charged (7 cents vs 15 cents), we’re talking about the price of a cup of Starbucks coffee each day (assuming 50% vs. 100% charge on a 85kWh battery pack). A lot of people won’t think twice about it.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41800 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:27:39 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41800 Bob Wallace You might not be aware, but the only automakers fully committed to BEVs are Tesla and Nissan. All the other majors are either a) invested in FCVs b) hedging their bets or c) waiting to see who wins.

To my knowledge, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Hyunda/Kia, VW, GM, Ford, and Daimler are all invested in FCV to the tune of a few billion. That’s not a lot of money in the auto industry, but it’s not like these companies are willing to throw that kind of cash around on a whim.

We can argue whether or not these automakers are band wagoners or innovators or whatever, but money talks. I see a lot more new cash invested in FCVs than BEVs…that’s not a good sign for the future of the BEV.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41798 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:23:34 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41798 Bob Wallace Brian Keez So a 50kWh battery pack is awfully small – I’m assuming it’s 60kWh or bust for any decent range BEV car.

However, to address your question, it’s my opinion that powertrain costs for the typical vehicle represent 15%-20% of MSRP, and that about half of these costs are the same for BEVs, FCVs, and ICEs (all cars need axles, transmissions, drive shafts, etc of some kind or another). Thus, we’re talking about roughly 10% of a vehicle’s asking price goes towards the ICE.

NOTE: I know I said “my opinion” here, and a lot of people are going to discount this statement precisely because it is my opinion. All I can say is that this is my wheelhouse (I run an automotive parts marketing company and have some good contacts).

The bottom line is that an auto manufacturer’s cost for a basic ICE (and I’m talking about a mass produced engine based on a modular family) is $3-$4k, with some hybrids and diesels stretching up to twice that amount. If a battery pack is going to be $7k, it’s going to be at a $3-4k cost disadvantage (wholesale), which is a $5-8k disadvantage retail. 

To put that retail cost difference in terms that consumers will care about, a BEV is going to cost $150-$250 more per month to buy than an equivalent ICE…and $150-$250 buys an awful lot of gasoline. Not to mention, an ICE doesn’t have any range limitations, doesn’t require an expensive home charging system, doesn’t need to be plugged in every night, etc.

As for FCVs, the NREL estimate is that a 60kW fuel cell stack will cost $3000 or less by 2017 (see myth #2 here – https://parts.olathetoyota.com/fuel-cell-myths.html), assuming high production volumes (500k units, if I recall). This means that FCVs are already cost-competitive with ICEs at scale – we’re just waiting for hydrogen fueling infrastructure. And NREL says the fuel cell stack cost could be as low as $1800 at that volume (especially if catalyst cost savings keep coming).

…which is why Toyota dropped BEVs and has gone full bore with FCVs. The math is already better, and we haven’t even begun to see the refinements automakers will make.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41797 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:23:00 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41797 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

I suspect we agree “in theory” but disagree only on details. 

Some drivers will be more ‘risk takers’ than others.  One driver with a 25 mile daily routine might set their minimum to 50 miles and another to 100 miles.

Rural drivers will be no different.  A RT to the grocery store is 150 miles for me.  A RT to the mail box (box, not Post Office) is 7 miles.  My charger would learn/be taught that I need a minimum of 30 miles which would take me to a friend’s house for dinner or to the expensive country store if I have to have milk.  And that somewhere 7 to 30 days after I go to town I’ll need a full 200 mile charge.

There’s still dispatchable load for the utilities to use even in my rural case.

Obviously there will be a few people who need to be fully charged every day.  They’ll have to pay full price.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41796 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:04:49 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41796 Bob Wallace Agree wholeheartedly that dispatchable load has value, but I don’t know that your “average” consumer will appreciate the value if it limits their options. City residents will probably be OK with it, but suburban and rural residents probably won’t go for it. What if there’s a traffic jam? What if I want to run across town for dinner? Etc. Etc.
I guess I’m agreeing with you in theory, but I have my doubts about consumers embracing the idea of even *more* limited range in exchange for a small price discount.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41795 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:45:24 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41795 sporkmarketing LoneWolffe

So 90% of all EV drivers would disable their smart chargers in order to enjoy 15 cents per kWh charging rather than 8 cent charging?

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41794 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:42:14 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41794 sporkmarketing

#2.  With an EV there’s no need to stop for a charge except on the rare day one is on a long trip.  And then the stop (based on Tesla’s superchargers) is more like 30 minutes.  That’s your meal/pee/check your messages stop that you’d need to do after filling hydrogen tanks.

I agree that FCEVs came out of car companies, not fuel companies.  Some years back we simply didn’t have the battery technology we have today and H2 FCEVs looked like our best way to get off petroleum.  But batteries did improve.

Take a look at the number of car manufacturers who are marketing or about to market an EV.  Then count the number of car manufacturers who are about to market a FCEV.   That’s telling.

Then subtract out all the FCEV manufacturers who started their fuel cell program several years ago to get the number of manufacturers who are now jumping on the FCEV band wagon.  Are there any?

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41793 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:34:05 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41793 sporkmarketing Brian Keez

” $120/kWh, which makes a 200 mile range battery pack about twice as expensive as an ICE.”

Does it?  At $120/kWh a 50 kWh battery pack would be $6k.  Can you build a decent sized ICE and its support systems (fuel, exhaust, cooling) for $3k?   

To get FCEVs down to ICEV prices would mean some very significant fuel cell cost drops.  Who is in a position where they can realistically say fuel cell prices will drop faster than battery prices?  It’s going to take a lot of manufacturing volume to bring fuel cell prices down and there won’t be any FCEVs in showrooms until 2015.  Getting to 100,000 vehicle per year volumes won’t happen in two years.

I agree that purchase price is very important.  But as important are monthly costs.  If someone is paying twice as much per mile to drive a FCEV that will make up for some of your hypothetical monthly lower FCEV payments.  (And I really doubt FCEVs will reach ICE levels sooner than BEVs.)

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41792 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:23:16 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41792 LoneWolffe sporkmarketing Bob Wallace What if you got that dreaded midnight emergency and your gasmobile tank was close to empty?

Set a minimum charge that gets you to the hospital, your ailing relative’s house, or whatever midnight emergency you can imagine.  

What if the garbage company paid people for their neatly bagged garbage set out on the curb on the appointed day?

Utilities are likely to pay for dispatchable load.  And pay enough so that if you need to use a ‘supercharger’ once in a while you’d still be well ahead.

And, remember, if you get a late night call telling you that you’re going to need to drive further than expected the next day you could call your car and tell it to fully charge.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41791 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:56:45 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41791 Bob Wallace sporkmarketing Come to think of it, that’s how Tesla markets its cars. If you look at the “monthly price” on the page, that includes “refueling savings”, dropping the payment below what you’d actually pay in cash to Tesla. The savings come from somewhere else, the utility company. Perhaps true enlightenment, on the part of potential BEV owners, is seeing those savings’ impact on the whole cost per mile.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41790 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:52:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41790 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace Yes, but I’m talking a few years down the road when we have affordable ~200 mile range cars.  

Some people have 5, 10, 20 mile normal driving days.  Having a 50 mile charge (with a rapid charger not far away if their plans change) will be fine with them.  That leaves the utility 150 miles of charge to use to spread load over days. 

The average US driving day is under 40 miles.  Someone with a 50 mile normal day might set a 100 mile minimum and let the utility determine how much of the last 100 is charged.

If the wind is going to be high on Tuesday night then use that extra supply to charge a bunch of EVs above the owner-determined minimum charge.  That then gives the utility the ability to skip charging those EVs for a few nights.  (150 reserve miles would last a 20 mile a day driver a week.)

If drivers want to fully charge their car each night, that would be an option.  But they wouldn’t get whatever the utility was offering for serving as dispatchable load (probably lower charge rates).

Dispatchable load has value.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41789 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:44:29 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41789 sporkmarketing LoneWolffe true, perhaps it wasn’t the best example. mostly, i was thinking about how people’s minds have to change. still, there’s trash everywhere in the world, a testament to how many people’s minds have YET to change.
it will require a great leap for BEV owners to accept grid-based charging structure.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41788 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:40:22 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41788 LoneWolffe I’m sure that you could put 100 BEV owners in a room and convince 90 of them that they should let the power grid set their vehicle’s charge level.
I’m also sure that, as soon as all 90 of these “enlightened” consumers got home, they’d plug in their cars and disable the smart setting so they got their charge. :)

While I appreciate your point about pollution (I’ve seen this myself in Central America), but I’m not sure it’s a good analogy. Part of the reason that most people in the USA don’t dump trash in public places is the fear of getting ticketed. Until we make it illegal to charge your BEV however you like, all consumers are going to give themselves permission to break the rules.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41787 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:33:37 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41787 @weapon In order:

1) True, but irrelevant. Consumers don’t make transportation choices based on emissions or efficiency. If they did, we’d all use bikes and public transportation. :)

2) Range problems are easily solved – just fill up! That’s the point of FCVs…you don’t have to stop and pick your nose for an hour (or more) while you wait for a charger. You just pump some more hydrogen in the tank and keep on trucking. Additionally, you can expect Toyota’s US model to have a longer range and a lower asking price too.

3) See point #2 – range isn’t an issue. Just refill the tank.

“FCVs are just a distraction by the fossil fuel industry” – I see this sentiment all the time, and all I can do is shake my head. Tens of billions of dollars have been committed to this “distraction” by companies that have absolutely nothing to do with fuel production. If Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, VW, Ford, GM, etc. are all mineral companies bent on perpetuating natural gas production, they’ve done an amazing job of disguising themselves as car companies that make their bones building what consumers love.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41786 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:30:33 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41786 sporkmarketing Brian Keez Actually, upfront pricing goes far beyond BEVs, but every form of technology. There’s two reasons to buy a Tesla, iPad, or Bulova: 1) technological superiority, or 2) it’s cool.
For the rest of us, who can’t afford those things, we’re left with Toyota, Android, and Timex.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41785 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:24:20 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41785 Brian Keez This is a common argument, but it’s based on a logical fallacy. Specifically, consumers (en masse) don’t care about efficiency – they only care about cost.

While most BEV advocates assume that the vehicle’s up-front costs will continue to fall, the predictions seem to be that battery packs will be pricey for the immediate future. The rosiest predictions for Tesla’s gigafactory are $120/kWh, which makes a 200 mile range battery pack about twice as expensive as an ICE.

FCVs, on the other hand, are likely to be cost-competitive with hybrid ICEs by the close of the decade (a VW exect recently told Automotive News he thought hybrid ICEs and FCVs would be cost-competitive by 2017). If a gasoline gallon equivalent amount of Hydrogen is identical in cost to a gallon of gas, FCVs will be slightly more appealing, as they’re more fuel efficient than gasoline.

But if a gge of hydrogen is 20-30% lower than gasoline – and an FCV is cost comparable to a hybrid ICE (which seems to be the industry’s feeling), consumers will see FCVs as the cheapest option.

Will they care that BEVs are more energy efficient? Only if a BEV can be cost comparable to a hybrid ICE, and I see no one making that prediction.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41784 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:21:34 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41784 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace You’re absolutely right, consumers are not logical. Still, we need to adjust our thinking.
For example, on a somewhat unrelated note, where I live in Perú has an appalling sense of how to dispose of trash. It freaks me out every time I see people dump trash into the river, everything from household trash to auto parts and televisions. And then they have the nerve to complain about the contamination that the mines are effecting.

The same use to be true in developed countries, such as the United States, and now it is illegal to dump trash in the river. “What? You mean I have to put it in a bag and wait for someone to pick it up? I have to pay for someone to pick it up? I have to pay for bags?” We adjusted.

BEV owners will learn to adjust, as long as their cars are charged. On the other hand, I do wonder about the dreaded midnight emergency, where you might need to get into your car and go somewhere. Because it’s not the normal routine, might you end up with an uncharged, and therefore useless, BEV in that emergency situation? Of course, that’s the 80/20 or 99/1 rule, right? I wonder how that might be addressed.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41783 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:13:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41783 Bob Wallace I understand the grid benefits of selective vehicle charging, but I can tell you as a veteran of the auto industry that people who plug in their cars are going to expect them to be charged, at least until a car with a 50% charge can go a couple hundred miles.

Quite frankly, this is why I find a lot of the conversations about BEVs so difficult. BEV fans are sort of oblivious to the realities of consumer behavior. Consumers are knowingly going to plug in a car that might not be charged? Consumers are going to accept the notion that they can’t charge their long-range EV for days because the grid was at capacity? Consumers only care if they have enough battery range to get home (aka minimum range)?

I appreciate the logic, but consumers aren’t logical. They never have been. Any predictions about BEVs that don’t reflect consumer behaviors and norms are – at best – exceedingly optimistic.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41780 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:46 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41780 Got an interesting email from Toyota, and I thought I’d share it with everyone:

Hi Benji,

I know The Green Optimistic is dedicated to providing information about green technology and I wanted to respond to your article <URL snip> where you ask if FCVs might be better than EVs. 

We think so and here arehttps://parts.olathetoyota.com/fuel-cell-myths.html.

If you find our list interesting, we are hoping you will share it on your site as a resource for readers. Additionally, we’re hoping our list might generate additional conversations or even debates on the topic.

Thanks for your time!

Sincerely,
Taryn with Olathe Toyota Parts Center

Seems like some pretty neat information, and I’ll be posting on this topic over the next couple weeks. Looking forward to your feedback!

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41781 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:46 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41781 Got an interesting email from Toyota, and I thought I’d share it with everyone:

Hi Benji,

I know The Green Optimistic is dedicated to providing information about green technology and I wanted to respond to your article <URL snip> where you ask if FCVs might be better than EVs. 

We think so and here arehttps://parts.olathetoyota.com/fuel-cell-myths.html.

If you find our list interesting, we are hoping you will share it on your site as a resource for readers. Additionally, we’re hoping our list might generate additional conversations or even debates on the topic.

Thanks for your time!

Sincerely,
Taryn with Olathe Toyota Parts Center

Seems like some pretty neat information, and I’ll be posting on this topic over the next couple weeks. Looking forward to your feedback!

]]>
Comment on Breakthrough Battery Technology for Gadgets and EVs in the Making at J-CESR by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/21/breakthrough-battery-technology-gadgets-evs-making-j-cesr/#comment-41779 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:31:11 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48610#comment-41779 Good work Mila; can you get Prof. Crabtree to give you a progress report?  I believe battery technology is the “New Transistor of the Century,”  the next “Trillion Dollar Baby” and the “Hope of the Planet.”

]]>
Comment on How to Build a Backyard Biogas Plant by RobertSamitahttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/03/14/how-to-build-a-backyard-biogas-plant/#comment-41778 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:50:57 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/02/10/how-to-build-a-backyard-biogas-plant/#comment-41778 its wonderful since it touches the life of men

]]>
Comment on Cheap and Efficient Thermoelectric Material Turns Waste Heat Into Eectricity by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/18/cheap-efficient-thermoelectric-material-turns-waste-heat-eectricity/#comment-41771 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:54:41 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48592#comment-41771 Vulvox’s innovation
will enable energy storage of intermittent photovoltaic and wind power. 
The patent pending Vulvox system
is expected to cost 7.69% as much as pumped
hydroelectric storage, its least expensive competitor and 2.7% as much
as
compressed air storage. Cheap electrcity
storage systems are desired by the renewable power industry and
government
smart grid programs. It will stabilize the
electricity grid and help prevent blackouts and brownouts. It can store
intermittent
renewable energy including wind power, solar
power and tidal energy, and later release the electrcity when it is
desirable,
such as at peak periods when air conditioner
use rises on hot summer days. It can store electricity for vehicle
battery recharging
stations. It can store electricity generated
by Stirling dish solar energy collectors making that form of solar
energy available
around the clock instead of during daylight
hours. Utility scale electricity storage will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
and slow or reverse damage to the environment
that excess carbon dioxide is causing.
As already stated it will
provide
bulk energy storage for utilities – shifting
large amounts of energy from excess production times to peak usage times
and that will enable storage of cheap
electrcity generated during off peak hours to be sold during peak demand
periods. It
will also enable lower usage of expensive
auxiliary power generators used during peak demand periods and it will
replace them
with cheap regenerated energy generated
overnight  and stored by our system.
According to a Lux research
report released May 29, 2008-
“Bulk
energy storage for utilities – shifting large amounts of energy from
excess
production times to peak usage times –
presents the biggest potential opportunity of all markets studied: If
even 10%
of installed wind power plants adopted
large-scale energy storage, the market would hit $50 billion.”

Our electricity
storage system beats its closest competitor by a factor of 15 times.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210133507.htm

Contact Neil Farbstein,  President of Vulvox for R&D partnership and patent licensing details.

http://vulvox.tripod.com/id28.html

http://vulvox.tripod.com

]]>
Comment on Researcher Offers Hope for Understanding Universe’s Unlimited Dark Energy by Anthony Proladhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/01/16/researcher-offers-hope-for-understanding-of-universes-unlimited-dark-energy/#comment-41770 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:51:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=31510#comment-41770 M.T. Keshe declares that “in the beginning” there is PLASMA – which comprises magnetic fields of various strengths.
Those of similar strength entangle to form neutrons (which decay to produce electrons and protons), the HYDROGEN atom, and so on.
The Keshe reactor duplicates the reactions occurring at the core of the planet. The simplest element, HYDROGEN, holds the “secrets”.
After confirming that Gravity is a consequence of interacting magnetic fields, he created a reactor that produced “lift”.
See “keshefoundation”.

]]>
Comment on Researcher Offers Hope for Understanding Universe’s Unlimited Dark Energy by Anthony Proladhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/01/16/researcher-offers-hope-for-understanding-of-universes-unlimited-dark-energy/#comment-41769 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:44:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=31510#comment-41769 DARK MATTER – STRING THEORY
Iranian nuclear engineer has created PLASMA REACTORS following discoveries regarding Matter, “Anti-matter”, and Dark Matter.
These discoveries have also led to the creation of Gravity powered craft.
 See”keshefoundation”

]]>
Comment on Nokero’s N182 Solar Light Bulb Is World’s Brightest and Most Affordable by NaatTurnerhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/01/nokeros-n182-solar-light-bulb-worlds-brightest-affordable/#comment-41768 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 05:10:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48245#comment-41768 July saw the launch of,
Another great and practicable invention out of Africa this year,
The Solar powered light,
coming just a few months after Ghana’s Etic Group invention of the Atmospheric Water Generator,
the Ugandan Onelamp is an application which is pertinent to and in the price range of ordinary folk.
Though the Onelamp is aimed at the 7:5 million Ugandan schoolers, 
it’s market lies throughout Africa and across the globe wherever issues of poverty and 
infrastructure affect matters of lighting.
Being able to gain 8 hours light at a time is a great asset of the Onelamp.
Onelamp’s nobility is enhanced in that it takes people away from using dangerous, dirty and polluting kerosene,
Kerosene “fumes kill an estimated 1.5 million women and children in Africa 
every year more than half of them below the age of five”,
solar power is renewable and non pollutive.
We should all where possible help in the promotion of this product.
Onelamp is contactable through
Email: info@onelamp.ug
http://www.onelamp.ug//
Regional Office: Plot 53 Lubas Road, Jinja, Uganda
Telephone: +256 – 434 660 875
Wholesale http://www.nokero.com/dealers/application.
Etic Group’s Atmospheric Water Generator,
Extracts water out of the air by way of a condenser,
through a process called reverse osmosis.
Contact http://eticgroupint.com//
A larger copy of the picture -
http://api.ning.com/files/826oIv68Xgj*m71BtVVt8KZDu1HILDPj5em-mhnWnr1omPZq6bXtus-mx*biUkqE*EBDKplfyVbIPMMHid8tzATduu9peo0F/Onelamp.jpg

]]>
Comment on UK Students from Brighton Turn Waste Into an Amazingly Livable House by bentleyyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/06/25/students-brighton-turn-waste-livable-house/#comment-41766 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:30:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48148#comment-41766 thanks for sharing that

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Powered Bike by bentleyyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/01/29/hydrogen-powered-bike/#comment-41764 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:29:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/01/29/hydrogen-powered-bike/#comment-41764 thanks alot

]]>