Fuel Cell Performance

> "I'm still looking for pricing data on these components but with fuel
> cell systems costing $600 per kW and the need to have 239 m^2 of
> solar PV arrays and not to mention the uproar that will ensue from
> having 5 tonnes of O2 and H2 on *EVERY* property in the
> neighborhood, and tankage of 46 tonnes, I think we can safely come
> to the conclusion that Amory Lovins and his scheme of massive
> decentralization to eliminte reliance on the electrical transmission
> grid is an energy strategy devoid of reality."

Your observation does not directly lead to that conclusion, because you
leave out the fact that many homes in the US typically have a 275 gallon
oil tank right next to them (some have much larger ones, up to 1000
gallons some places). Home heating oil weighs probably about 7 lbs per
gallon, so we are looking at about a ton of fuel for a fully loaded 275
gallon oil tank already on many people's properties. By your reasoning
then should all these homes and their neighborhoods be evacuated because
they are storing tons of energy locally?

I'm not sure off hand how much of the five tons you are figuring is
related to oxygen, which is heavier than hydrogen and does not have to
be stored. At a 16 to one atomic weight difference though, and two to
one hydrogen to oxygen, we are looking at eight times as much oxygen by
weight -- so if your calculation is correct and for storing both from
water electrolysis, then people would be storing less hydrogen by weight
than a tank of oil in this calculation, which might make sense because
the hydrogen is converted to power more efficiently in fuel cells than
oil in a generator, and a typical obsolete US home may already be
burning enough oil to heat its drafty poorly insulated interior to
generate all its own power if using cogeneration to supply energy
efficient appliances. Again -- a failure of culture -- why aren't oil
heated homes in the US generating their own power for national security
reasons?

Here is a microcogeneration unit for sale ($10K) suitable for a house:
http://www.polarpowerinc.com/products/generators/cogenset.htm
"Simultaneously this unit provides:
* 34,000 Btu/hr of air conditioning.
* Up to 30,000 Btu/hr for heating hot water.
* Up to 6 kW of DC power for battery charging.
Polars micro-cogen unit can operate from natural gas, propane, or
gasoline. Diesel and other fuel models are available."

The point is that if the US were seriously interested in national
security instead of lining the pockets of people controlling monopolies
on energy and arms, there would be an immediate $87 billion per year
crash program including tax rebates, loans, training, grants, and other
incentives to install units like this in every home in the US (as well
as super insulation and energy efficient appliances and cars) as a stop
gap measure until cheap PV can take over (and these units could still be
part of a PV system for backup power). But instead we get proposals to
drill in Alaska, beef up the grid, keep US soldiers in harms way for
questionable and even counterproductive ends, and long term as in here,
make the US more dependant second by second on a vulnerable grid and
vulnerable remote power with SSPS (or in the conventional mode,
centralzied big nukes, coal, and/or fusion plants).

The issue of storage tank wall weight may be another issue depending on
how hydrogen is stored -- compressed, liquefied, or sequestered as
propane, etc. and whether the community shares a common large tank for
seasonal use (given that you have a point about the lower mass of larger
tanks per unit volume based on geometry). You can make your strongest
point on the complexity of storing large quantities of hydrogen under
pressure or as liquid form, but remember, Amory Lovins' _Soft Energy
Paths_ doesn't depend on that, since supplementing with a 500 gallon
tank of hydrogen derived propane delivered once a year would be quite
alright and the technology to handle propane is already widely
understood. and supplementation is perhaps supplying only 10-15% or so
of the total energy needed to power the home cost effectively (to allow
smaller PV installations and deal with statistically likely occasinal
runs of cloudy days).

Looks to me like straw men arguments.

Now if you want to argue for SSPS for generating the hydrogen derived
propane in a remote area, where such propane is supplemental to the US
lifestyle, not essential, and this SSPS is built only after we have
self-replicating space habitats built for other reasons like they are
cool and give humanity hope and inspiration (so SSPS doesn't have to pay
their way), and that we transition to this (potentially gridless) future
over the next thirty years using ever decreasing amounts of fossil fuels
and centralized nukes etc., then I'm listening. :-) But, that is still
close to Lovin's concept.

So, I guess I'll conceed that SSPS used for supplementation of batch
delivered carbon sequestered fuels as opposed to baseload electrical
power probably isn't such a bad thing from a national security
standpoint -- if supplementation remains primarily optional and mostly
for comfort or convenience or entertainment.

--Paul Fernhout