OIL TYCOONS' BIGGEST FEAR COMES TRUE:Genesis World Energy Introduces Revolutionary Automotive Hydrogen Fuel Generation Device

http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=873&zoneid=2

I have seen media releases about this type of technology in the past and while I don't know how good this particular technology is, it certainly would solve a lot of problems in the world if it ever got going.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-04-22 22:22:04 by hutch--
hutch,
looks like technology that has actually been around for a few decades. Personally, i cannot wait to get this sort of thing available for cars, it will blow the oil market to smithereens.
Posted on 2003-04-23 00:14:43 by sluggy
The oil companies will just buy the patent and sit on it.
Posted on 2003-04-23 00:35:17 by iblis
iblis,

I agree thats been the usual scenario but if the technology ends up in the hands of those who see a use for it, particularly in a climate of hassles about oil supplies, it may make the starting gate in terms of technology and end up on the market.

It would probably be a good thing for all if oil was not the big deal it is at the moment. We are lucky here that we have the alternative fossil fuel in quantities that will last longer than the world's supply of known oil. Coal in enormous quantities and it is used here now for electricity generation.

The other energy source we have in massive quantities is uranium and the technology here can only get better if the politics don't keep getting in the road. Perhaps one of the good thing about the technology for fast breeder reactors is that plutonium will be too valuable to waste in armaments.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-04-23 01:42:44 by hutch--
The oil companies will just buy the patent and sit on it.
And if the patent owners don't sell the patent to the oil companies, you will probably find people turning up dead in unusual circumstances.

If a fuel device like this was in widespread use, then Dubya would actually have to start governing the USA for the good of its citizens, rather than for his own purposes (coz there would be diminished need for oil).
Posted on 2003-04-23 03:11:30 by sluggy
this thing runs on water :/
water is getting scarce I'm being told more and more.
Posted on 2003-04-23 04:47:24 by Hiroshimator
Hydrogen fuel is old and they've been studying it for years. My professor in physics has worked on hydrogen fuel projects for the industry for years. The real big pro with hydrogenfuel is the reduce of exhausts (water instead iirc), H+ ions etc, but in costs it's not a really big reduce.
Posted on 2003-04-23 05:22:33 by SFP
Canada is the leading country for the researches on the hydrogen energy.
Posted on 2003-04-23 07:06:28 by Vortex
Originally posted by sluggy
Personally, i cannot wait to get this sort of thing available for cars, it will blow the oil market to smithereens.


There will always be a market for oil. Crude petroleum is refined and used for manufacturing lots of products that will not be easily replaced with alternatives (such as jet fuel, plastics, rubbers, and specialty chemicals).
Posted on 2003-04-23 09:35:57 by Berninhell
Sluggy, I would like to see how it works, the LP gas they used to sell here was 110 octane until they blended it with butane and its now 90 octane, too low for my ford V8.

Stopp all the hippies and greenies from whinging with its output of water and the performance would be good.I could put back a set of high compression heads and get some real grunt out of it. :tongue:

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-04-23 10:00:24 by hutch--
The hydrogen cell is a beautifull idea from the pollution perspective.

Problem is its more expensive then gas for auto travel after considering the cost of the splitting of the H2O molecule. Another problem is safe handling and storage.

Nope...the hydrogen cell is never gonna get this planet going.

Just like nuclear energy it will be another failed technology.

What we need is a Warp Engine...yep ..thats the ticket.
Posted on 2003-04-23 11:07:11 by IwasTitan
Problem is its more expensive then gas for auto travel after considering the cost of the splitting of the H2O molecule. Another problem is safe handling and storage.
Cost???!!!! You can split that molecule by passing an electric charge through it. If it "costs" too much, then they are doing something wrong. And of course your other costs are reduced because water is everywhere (except the desert of course), this means that no longer will a handful of countries/corporations dictate to the world because the world needs their product.
Posted on 2003-04-23 17:12:32 by sluggy
Just like nuclear energy it will be another failed technology.
I won't dispute this, because i don't know in what way you you mean that it failed. However i do wish that this country had a nuclear power plant, as we are having to save electricity now in the lead up to winter, so that we won't have shortages during the winter (this country relies on hydro generated electricity, supplemented with a couple of little oil/gas fired plants).
Posted on 2003-04-23 17:15:53 by sluggy

Canada is the leading country for the researches on the hydrogen energy.

Our government puts alot of cash into the research each year, money well spent in my opinion. Ballard Power in BC is the acknowledged leader in practical hydrogen fuel cells though there are alot of Canadian companies involved in the research project. Since we have much of the world's fresh water within our borders it makes sense that we would be the leader in hydrogen fuel technology.

My problem is how i can convert my old ford 302 to hydrogen so I can still drive my '69 Mustang.
Posted on 2003-04-23 17:38:30 by donkey
Just like nuclear energy it will be another failed technology.


Well... sorry to say your 100% off base here, IMHO. You probably have generated more human waste, sitting in a garbage dump than the amount of fuel rods you've used to power yourself over the years.

While spent fuel rods are immediately more toxic, they are easier to contain and deal with than the trash you put out on the curb once a week. If there is ever to be finger pointing, i would say the LANDFILL is a "failed technology". Im currently working on a project that involves pumping the LEACHADE from a landfill site to a facility to dispose of it. The pipe is 36" and double walled (ie a pipe in a pipe), all becasue this stuff is a truely nasty toxic soup that gets trapped at the bottom liner of the landfill sites. Look at an ash-tray left outside in the rain, and then multiply this by 100,000 and add human surprises like paint cans, chemical cleaners, cat litter, and hundreds of other bio materials. In short we call this "Leachade".


Back on topic with this thread:

The Canadian gov is and has been researching a new CANDU reactor. I had the pleasure of meeting a representative of the project while in my last year of university. The going design is make the reactor core more effiecient, and reducing area (and hence fuel rods). Likewise, they are impliementing a secondary reactor dedicated to providing the generation of Hydrogen for fuel cell technology.

The basic idea is to be as effiecient as possible. The same reactor that is keeping your air-conditioner running can also be supplying your gas stations with cost-effective hydrogen fuel.

Check out this link if you like (a pdf):
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/Envir_Energ_Conf.pdf

:NaN:
Posted on 2003-04-23 19:25:32 by NaN
Hi NaN,

You wouldn't be working on the project to send garbage up to my end of the province would you :( i.e. the old Adam's mine project ?
Posted on 2003-04-23 19:36:22 by donkey
I am with NaN on nuclear stuff, instead of it being done tackily with old bad habits and sneaky disposal methods, I would like to see fusion developed in a viable way as it will have some very interesting applications for very clean power.

Plutonium is so valuable that you would not waste it in weaponry but preserve it for further power generation.

The problems have usually been a developed technology that has stood still in the face of political pressure and economic reactions to it without properly developing viable safe ways of handling the basic materials.

New technology is needed as it will be imperative in the future to have energy this efficient available. Rather than keep avoiding the issue on the basis of it being to hard to handle, it is far better to develop it safely as an economically viable power source.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-04-23 20:48:00 by hutch--

I am with NaN on nuclear stuff, instead of it being done tackily with old bad habits and sneaky disposal methods, I would like to see fusion developed in a viable way as it will have some very interesting applications for very clean power.

Plutonium is so valuable that you would not waste it in weaponry but preserve it for further power generation.

The problems have usually been a developed technology that has stood still in the face of political pressure and economic reactions to it without properly developing viable safe ways of handling the basic materials.

New technology is needed as it will be imperative in the future to have energy this efficient available. Rather than keep avoiding the issue on the basis of it being to hard to handle, it is far better to develop it safely as an economically viable power source.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com


Canadas reactors (Called the Candu reactor are fusion reactors).

They still produce undesirable material and it doesn't matter where or how you store the debris..it is radioavctive for 1000s of years.

What is needed is the sun cycle ( H+H to He) but as of yet that has been unattainable on earth because the temperature/pressure ranges are out of reach.

No..i still maintain that conventional nuclear energy using extremely heavy isotopes is not the answer.

NaN:

Garbage rots a lot faster than radiocative debris.
Posted on 2003-04-23 21:13:30 by IwasTitan



Canadas reactors (Called the Candu reactor are fusion reactors).

They still produce undesirable material and it doesn't matter where or how you store the debris..it is radioavctive for 1000s of years.

What is needed is the sun cycle ( H+H to He) but as of yet that has been unattainable on earth because the temperature/pressure ranges are out of reach.

No..i still maintain that conventional nuclear energy using extremely heavy isotopes is not the answer.

NaN:

Garbage rots a lot faster than radiocative debris.


First there are no fussion reactors in the world and the technology does not exist to make one.The Candu is a heavy water fission reactor, it has nothing to do with fussion. Second even the worst reactor produce the equivalent to abot a matchbox of waste per year per household.
Posted on 2003-04-23 21:28:55 by donkey



First there are no fussion reactors in the world and the technology does not exist to make one.The Candu is a heavy water fission reactor, it has nothing to do with fussion. Second even the worst reactor produce the equivalent to abot a matchbox of waste per year per household.


I agree on the facts about fusion/fission


Tell me this.


What is the difference between the materials used in a conventional reactors and the sun?
Posted on 2003-04-24 00:22:40 by IwasTitan