Bush's hydrogen future is here (Big break through)

United Nuclear ^

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

United Nuclear is currently in final testing, and will shortly be producing Hydrogen Fuel Systems & Hydrogen generators for several late model, fuel injected, Gasoline powered vehicles.

Powering a vehicle by Hydrogen is by no means a new idea, and in fact, almost all automobile manufacturers are currently developing a new generation of vehicles that run on Hydrogen as opposed to Gasoline. This new generation of vehicles are essentially electric cars that use a Fuel Cell instead of a battery to run the electric motor. Using a chemical process, Fuel Cells in these new vehicles convert the stored Hydrogen on board, and the Oxygen in the air, directly into electricity to power their electric motors. These new vehicles are very efficient, and in fact are more efficient than any internal combustion engine. The problem is that these new vehicles are years away from production, are very expensive, and converting to using Hydrogen fuel in this manner requires you to buy a new ( and expensive ) vehicle. All Hydrogen/Fuel Cell systems currently under development by large manufacturers have you purchase Hydrogen as you would Gasoline. Our system comes with its own "in-home" Hydrogen generator which allows you to manufacture fuel yourself at near zero cost. Our Hydrogen conversion is an intermediate approach that simply converts your existing vehicle to burn Hydrogen or Gasoline. The Gasoline fuel system remains intact and is not modified. This allows you to switch between running on Gasoline or Hydrogen at any time. The engine itself is only slightly modified, the conversion makes substantial changes to the computer & electrical system, ignition and cooling systems. Since they never have to be removed, Hydrogen fuel storage (Hydride tanks) can be installed in virtually any available space within the vehicle.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

" I noticed it's about his "neighbors" (Sandia), not him or his company."

My point is that the cars United Nuclear has built have validity. He has already built two cars and is developing a do-it-yourself kit. While two companies GM and Lockheed (Sandia National Lab.) are playing catch-up.

You said “not him or his company” in an attempt to stop the discussion. I don’t see how this pertains to your argument that the hydrogen car is not legitimate. These two companies are investing millions of dollars to fine tune United Nuclear’s product.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[Boot Hill]

"I want you to tell me how much a solar panel square meter costs and how much fuel it produces."

OK, here are the answers...

Using the most advanced solar technology currently available...

1. Measured in gasoline-energy equivalents, on average, how much hydrogen will a solar cell produce per square meter per day?
   Answer:   Each square meter of solar cell will produce less than 2 ounces of gasoline-energy equivalents per day of hydrogen.

2. The cost of a square meter of solar cell averages how much?
   Answer:   The average cost of solar panels today is greater than $500 per square meter. And contrary to popular lore, this price has not dropped in the past 20-25 years.

The net result is that had Bob Lazar(!) used solar panels to produce his hydrogen, he would have needed 200 square meters of panels costing 105,000 dollars (not counting interest, installation, supports, wiring, etc.). And even then, it would have taken 16 days to refill his 650 mile driving range tanks.

So then what is the advantage to Bob Lazar's(!) hydrogen powered automobile?

Is it economics? No, This hydrogen powered system is vastly more expensive to operate than a conventional gasoline powered vehicle.

Is it fuel efficiency? No, you ultimately use more fuel with this system than with a conventionally fueled automobile.

Is it energy independence from foreign imports? No, the increased electrical demand, used to produce the hydrogen will only serve to increase our imports of fossil fuels.

Is it to line the pockets of Bob Lazar(!) with money? Yes!!!

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

Your failure to address the questions raised means that you caved like a wet dishrag when faced with a substantive technical discussion of Bob Lazar's(!) crazy hydrogen get-rich scheme. There's no doubt that you're passionate about the subject, but passion doesn't trump reason. And you've yet to offer any.

• "the cost of PV...[is] less than $5 today."

Very incorrect, the cost of PV currently hovers between $25-30 per delivered watt. The figure you refer to is a mythical and unobtainable "peak" watt that is based upon testing under contrived conditions that uses a solar irradiance that is not found anywhere in the United States. And it uses artificially cooled solar cells in order to boost the test results. The only results that matter are average daily deliverable watts. Anything else is just hype.

• "Cost of the technology continues to decline."

NO IT DOESN'T!!! It has remained essentially flat for the past 20-25 years. See the table below from the DOE (who promotes the solar scam on our tax dollars).

Bob Lazar's(!) crazy scheme makes no economic sense, it makes no fuel efficiency sense and it does not lessen our dependence on foreign imports of fossil fuels.

--Boot Hill

[longshadow]

Just when I thought the baloney couldn't be sliced any thinner, you manage to astound me.

In real life, are you a carny barker? You have the talent.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

It seems that you are more interested in stopping the discussion then adding to it. Your graph clear shows that $5/watt has been achieved for some time. Look more carefully at your information rather then pointing your guns at us and shooting us with your ignorance.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[longshadow]

Bob Lazar's(!) crazy scheme makes no economic sense, it makes no fuel efficiency sense and it does not lessen our dependence on foreign imports of fossil fuels.

I wonder if this is the same "Bob Lazar":

Personal Facts
Lazar is in his late-30s (He says he was born 1959.) and lives in Las Vegas. He says he makes his living through several small businesses including a photo studio and a company that repairs radiation monitors. Lazar has also earned income from movie options (for movies of his story that were never made), his video tape and a Testors plastic flying saucer model based on his account. (It is one of the best selling plastic models of all time and it could be worth a lot to Lazar if he received a per-item royalty.) Lazar has routinely turned down paid speaking engagements but has been paid for television interviews.
In the mid-1980s, prior to coming to Las Vegas, Lazar worked at Los Alamos National Laboratories, although some of the details of his employment are still unclear. (There is nothing to indicate a senior position as he claims.) He claims to have earned master's degrees at MIT and Cal-Tech, but these claims are unproven to say the least, and the professors he says he took classes with at these schools never existed there.

Lazar grew up on Long Island, NY, and graduated from High School in Westbury, NY, in 1976. He is known to have worked at Fairchild Electronics in the Los Angeles area in the early 1980s and then at Los Alamos. Also in Los Alamos, Lazar owned a one-hour photo shop.

Educational credentials aside, Lazar is certainly a highly capable technician in the area of explosives and propulsion systems. As hobbies, he owns a high-speed jet car and builds his own elaborate fireworks, which are displayed in an annual invitation-only fireworks show called Desert Blast.

In 1990, Lazar plead guilty to a pandering charge relating to the operation of an illegal brothel in Las Vegas. It was claimed in the formal charges that Lazar was a partner in the brothel and that he had installed a hidden video system in one apartment to photograph the business in the adjoining one. (This at least suggests that he is capable of exploiting others.) Around 1986, Lazar filed from bankruptcy protection in Las Vegas Federal Bankruptcy Court. The records for both cases are available to the public and yield extensive details about Lazar's background. As part of his sentencing on the pandering charge, a probation report was prepared. In this report, enforced by purjury laws, Lazar did not repeat his MIT and Cal-Tech claims.

In interviews, Lazar comes across as a reluctant witness who would rather avoid the limelight and who wishes the story would go away. He seems highly rational and does not expand his claims beyond those originally reported. In most regards, Lazar seems passive and disinterested in his own story and seems content to let Gene Huff handle most public interface. Lazar seems to have nothing to sell, and has never actively promoted his story. (Through his Tri-Dot company, he sells a video and poster, but he has never promoted them in his interviews.) He says he regards mosts UFO buffs as "nuts" and wants nothing to do with them (Gene Huff and John Lear aside).

Lazar offers few personal relationships to triangulate from. Lazar's father, although identified in Lazar's bankruptcy papers, has never spoken publically about his claims, Only one Lazar friend, Jim Tagliani, claims publically to have worked with Lazar prior to his arrival in Las Vegas. (They both worked at Fairchild Electronics in Southern California.) When queried about whether or not he believes Lazar, Tagliani just seems to shrug his shoulders. The three most active supporters of Lazar are Gene Huff, John Lear and George Knapp, the newsman who first publicized Lazar's claims. Each has already invested his reputation in the story. John Andrews, the designer of the saucer model, and stealth aircraft historian Jim Goodall both believe Lazar but have never actively defended him. Former astronaut Edgar Mitchell has visited Lazar; he says he thinks Lazar's experience was real but that he is misinterpreting some of the technical details. (Mitchell supports the theories of Hal Puthoff which conflict with the propulsion system Lazar describes.) Most others who are close to Lazar seem to respond as Tagliani does, apart from Gene Huff, who is an active supporter.

Former co-workers at Los Alamos confirm that Lazar worked for a contractor there but seem highly skeptical of his later S-4 claims. They assert that he never held any high-level position at Los Alamos.

Source:

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/areas4.htm

NOTE: the source website states that it has not been actively maintained since 1996, so information about Lazar living in Las Vegas may no longer be accurate.

[Boot Hill]

• "Your graph clear shows that $5/watt has been achieved for some time."

It clearly shows that your claim that the "cost of the technology continues to decline", is 100% false. The prices bottomed out 20-25 years ago. In other words, solar power is a technology that has come and gone. It peaked long ago without ever becoming competitive.

As for that "$5/watt" number, as has already been explained to you, that figure represents an unobtainable, theoretical peak watt and not the real deliverable watts. Deliverable watts are the only thing that count. The reality remains that the cost is $25-$30 per deliverable watt.

• "Look more carefully at your information rather then pointing your guns at us and shooting us with your ignorance."

Resorting to ad hominem attacks only serves to underscore your failure to provide reasoned, logical responses on this subject.

The facts remain undisputed by you and they clearly show Bob Lazar's(!) crazy get-rich hydrogen car scheme (1.)makes no economic sense, (2.)it makes no fuel efficiency sense and (3.)it does not lessen our dependence on foreign imports of fossil fuels.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

"Former co-workers at Los Alamos confirm that Lazar worked for a contractor there but seem highly skeptical of his later S-4 claims. They assert that he never held any high-level position at Los Alamos."

Yup, that's the very same Bob Lazar(!), scammer extraordinaire! Amazing the number of "rubes" he suckered in on just this one thread. I guess there really is one born every minute. They get suckered because they want something for nothing, but TANSTAAFL.

--Boot Hill

[Phsstpok]

It doesn't matter. The massive explosions causing loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage

OK, I'll fill two big plastic containers of equal volume, one with hydrogen and one with gasoline. I'll strap an igniter circuit to each that will guarantee that they will each blow up. You and I each take one. I'll take the hydrogen.

Where would you like me to send your "crispy critter" corpse? I'll be able to do that since I will be alive and you will a charcoal briquette (and unfortunately I've seen what a "crispy critter" looks like and had to deal with it in a previous job as an ambulance driver).

The image of hydrogen being this big nasty explosive problem as compared to "safe" gasoline is a dangerous and foolish misconception. How (and why) do you think most "crispy critters" get crispy?

Most people point to the Hindenburg (as several people in this thread have done) to "prove" the dangers of hydrogen. Well, guess what? It wasn't the hydrogen you saw burning in the old newsreel. It was the aluminum based doping compound used in the skin. The hydrogen flames were virtually invisible in that film.

And specifically examining the Hindenburg crash, there were 97 passenger and crew on the Hindenburg when it burned. 62 survived. That's a 64% survival rate. When's the last time you heard of a plane crash with a 64% survival rate?

Hydrogen ain't the problem. Doing dumb things with any combustible material is the dumb thing.

Me? I favor Hydrazine and a little "agenothree." Hypergolic chemicals are fun and potent, but they are not our friends!

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

" Resorting to ad hominem attacks only serves to underscore your failure to provide reasoned, logical responses on this subject."

Interesting, I was just thinking the same thing about you. I don't have desire to allow this discussion to escalate into a flame out. I think this technology is very interesting, and it is a glimpse into our future. Whether it ever becomes a main stream product or just a do-it-yourself job (i.e., the long-ez), it’s still fascinating.

My prediction is that a hand full of handy people will convert their cars using the kit being developed by United Nuclear, and maybe in the future GM will build a few cars for a small market- similar to the electric car they built in the 1980’s (EV1).

And if it fails you can take great pride in knowing you were against people trying new things.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[Boot Hill]

"I think this technology is very interesting, and it is a glimpse into our future."

That would be an Orwellian future, where PC takes precedence over technological fact, reason and logic. And the fact is that Bob Lazar's(!) crazy get-rich-quick hydrogen car scheme (1.)makes no economic sense, (2.)it makes no fuel efficiency sense and (3.)it does not lessen our dependence on foreign imports of fossil fuels.

--Boot Hill

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

It’s a kit that will cost a few thousand dollars and only a very small number of people will use it – hardly a get rich scheme.

There is nothing P.C. about this nobody is forcing people to buy it, or adopted it. Orwellian? Come-on are you trying to say big brother is pushing United Nuclear into a mass brainwashing using the internet and a “crazy” man with an unusual car.

You must be a gas station manager – fearful you may lose your job. I think I saw a black helicopter flying over your house last night- get your tinfoil hat out.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[Boot Hill]

"You must be a gas station manager – fearful you may lose your job."

I'm an engineer with 35 years experience in electronics and optics. I've closely watched the evolution of efficiency in energy production since the 1950's. Among my experiences experiences has been as technical advisor to one of the leading intellectual property law firms in Silicon Valley where I regularly debunked technological scams like the one you posted on this thread.

Bob Lazar's(!) crazy get-rich-quick hydrogen car scheme (1.) makes no economic sense, (2.) it makes no fuel efficiency sense and (3.) it does not lessen our dependence on foreign imports of fossil fuels.

This is nothing less than a scam and it depends on gullible people for its success.

--Boot Hill

[rellimpank]

--amen to another hydrogen thread--

--as an aside, IIRC some years ago I saw figures on solar cells indicating that the electrical requirements of the LA basin would require panels covering an area equal to Arizona--

[Boot Hill]

"I saw figures on solar cells indicating that the electrical requirements of the LA basin would require panels covering an area equal to Arizona."

Since the LA basin accounts for something like 1/4 of electrical consumption in California, such a solar system could not be tied to the conventional grid. Therefore, line 6 in the table below, would have to be divided by three. In other words, you would only get 7 deliverable watts per square meter of PV panel. The cost would be astronomical. Moreover, it would consume the entire world's production of solar cells for about a decade. For these reasons alone, only California would consider such idiocy.

---

 

The Inefficiencies of Solar Power
(Based upon a horizontal PV array located at
the average continental U.S. latitude of 38º.)

ref.	source	loss (%)	power (per m2)
1.	Solar flux	-	1,368 W
2.	Atmospheric losses	45	752 W
3.	Night times losses	50	376 W
4.	Solar angle losses	50	188 W
5.	Cell conversion losses	88	22.6 W
6.	DC®AC inverter losses	10	20.3 W
7.	Net efficiency		1.5%
8.	Net energy             (per m2 per day)		0.5 kWh
9.	Value of energy     (per m2 per day)		4.3 ¢
10.	Solar panel cost               (per m2)		$530
11.	Payback period		33 years

Notes:

1.	Above the atmosphere. Compare to solar constant.
2.	Loss = atmos. absorp. + atmos. reflect. + cloud absorp. + cloud reflect. See additional references: 1,   2,   3,
3.	Necessary for calculating average daily value of energy production.
4.	Effect of solar angle on efficiency. Line 4 equals 4.5kWh per day. Compare to U.S. Average Daily Solar Radiation.
5.	Shell SQ175-PC, including specified de-rating for cell temperature and irradiance level.
6.	5kW modular, certified, grid-interactive, inverter.
7.	Line 6 divided by line 1.
8.	Line 6 times 86,400 and divided by 3.6E6.
9.	From 2004 DOE stats for average U.S. residential price.
10.	Shell SQ175-PC solar panel, $699, 1.32m2 area.
11.	Exclusive of installation, inverter, interest, etc.

---

--Boot Hill

[rellimpank]

--great info which I will keep for future reference.

As another aside to the hydrogen stuff, on my annual vacation pilgrimage to Wisconsin, I usually end up getting a few dirty looks after having questioned why the tractors cultivating corn to be made into ethanol aren't using it instead of diesel fuel--

[dhs12345]

Good point! You don't get anything for free.

It will work if they can find an inexpensive source of hydrogen. I believe they were planning to get the hydrogen from fossil fuels. Not exactly inexpensive and back to burning fossil fuels.

On the other hand, if the fuel cell energy conversion process is more efficient than fossil fuels, including all the way back to the original source, then it might be feasible.

[Boot Hill]

Being as you're from Nevada, you can ask that question and not get "disappeared". Now if you were from California....!

The thing that gets me about wasting land to produce ethanol is that most people are unaware that the growing potential of land can be worn out and that more than one civilization has collapsed because of just that, worn out land that could no longer support significant agriculture.

When an economy collapses, the only thing a country can fall back on to pull itself back up are agriculture and natural resources. Virtually all the poor third-world countries have less 5 arable acres per person. With few exceptions, less than 2.5 arable acres per person virtually guarantees political instability and chaos.

--Boot Hill

[rellimpank]

--and there are plenty of folks out here who would reply that "land can always be fertilized"--not realizing that much of the fertilizer has natural gas as its primary component--

[SierraWasp]

You are so absolutely correct and with that shot, you've shot through a tremendous amount of tired tirades all these "alternative" and "organic" energy kooks who also don't want to understand the laws of thermodynamics and basic economics!!!

You da man!!!