Comments on: The New National Energy Policy: Where Do Fuel Cells Belong? http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/ is your source for the latest information on fuel cells. Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:57:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Alan Cuthbert http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-1346 Alan Cuthbert Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:48:39 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-1346 I have an employment opportunity with "off the scale" interest value.  We need an Electrical Engineer with power generation experience, (fuel cell and battery), for the next Moon lander.  Must have and Electrical Engineering degree and be a United States citizen. I have an employment opportunity with “off the scale” interest value.  We need an Electrical Engineer with power generation experience, (fuel cell and battery), for the next Moon lander.  Must have and Electrical Engineering degree and be a United States citizen.

]]> By: k gold scrap http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-467 k gold scrap Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:12:23 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-467 <strong>k gold scrap...</strong> AC Transit, who currently operates three hydrogen hybrid buses in the Northern California area has agree to buy eight 120 kW PureMotion Model 120 fuel cells to power the company’ s next generation buses. From past testing, AC Transit has found that t... k gold scrap…

AC Transit, who currently operates three hydrogen hybrid buses in the Northern California area has agree to buy eight 120 kW PureMotion Model 120 fuel cells to power the company’ s next generation buses. From past testing, AC Transit has found that t…

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-161 John Trocciola Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:38:01 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-161 I think fuel cells at shelters would really help in this case: NEW YORK, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Some 328,000 homes and businesses in Illinois and Indiana had no power Tuesday morning after severe thunderstorms pummeled the area Monday night, local electric companies said. Exelon Corp's (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Commonwealth Edison unit still had some 238,000 customers in the dark, down from about 427,000 customers initially affected I think fuel cells at shelters would really help in this case:

NEW YORK, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Some 328,000 homes and businesses in Illinois and Indiana had no power Tuesday morning after severe thunderstorms pummeled the area Monday night, local electric companies said.

Exelon Corp’s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Commonwealth Edison unit still had some 238,000 customers in the dark, down from about 427,000 customers initially affected

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-119 John Trocciola Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:27:51 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-119 Redstone: Nuclear = "good", no CO2 Plutonium waste products= "no problem", the nuclear labs have another idea Guaranteed rate of return for utilites= "good" Gov built storage for nuclear waste = "good" Investment tax credits for fuel cells = "bad" Redstone:
Nuclear = “good”, no CO2
Plutonium waste products= “no problem”, the nuclear labs have another idea

Guaranteed rate of return for utilites= “good”
Gov built storage for nuclear waste = “good”
Investment tax credits for fuel cells = “bad”

]]> By: David Redstone http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-116 David Redstone Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:47:19 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-116 I didn't say I didn't mention nuclear. I said that you were the one who brought it up here. Which you did. You were the first to bring it it up (gratuitously attack it) in this thread in post #5 above. I was responding to you. You do seem to see things in a way that serves your agenda rather than the way they actually are. I didn’t say I didn’t mention nuclear. I said that you were the one who brought it up here. Which you did. You were the first to bring it it up (gratuitously attack it) in this thread in post #5 above. I was responding to you.
You do seem to see things in a way that serves your agenda rather than the way they actually are.

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-115 John Trocciola Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:23:34 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-115 from your July 21 st "post". "Nuclear completely eliminates GHG emissions. Sounds pretty “good” to me right now" So you didn't mention nuclear; wow I guess I should put you in the "not objective class" along with me and the folks at the Nuclear lab you reference so proudly. Mr Redstone, I think our debate is over; have a glowing life from your July 21 st “post”.
“Nuclear completely eliminates GHG emissions. Sounds pretty “good” to me right now”

So you didn’t mention nuclear; wow I guess I should put you in the “not objective class” along with me and the folks at the Nuclear lab you reference so proudly.
Mr Redstone,
I think our debate is over; have a glowing life

]]> By: David Redstone http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-114 David Redstone Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:59:32 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-114 You brought up nuclear, not me. I never said nuclear is truly renewable. The North Koreans were able to recover plutonium because the fuel cycle they use allows them to do it. My link describes a completely different fuel cycle that wouldn't allow it. You have been working on FCs for 45 years (not to mention the fact you are demanding that the government install 100,000 FCs when the market won't) so I must question your objectivity. You brought up nuclear, not me. I never said nuclear is truly renewable.

The North Koreans were able to recover plutonium because the fuel cycle they use allows them to do it. My link describes a completely different fuel cycle that wouldn’t allow it.

You have been working on FCs for 45 years (not to mention the fact you are demanding that the government install 100,000 FCs when the market won’t) so I must question your objectivity.

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-113 John Trocciola Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:57:22 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-113 Mr Redstone, Didn't the North Koreans recover plutonium from the waste material from a reactor and build a bomb? Point is that the waste material must be carefully guarded to prevent proliferation; so I have a problem talking about nuclear and true renewables in the same paragraph.Fuel cells produce water, which in fact is very, very valuable in certain parts of the world I went to your link, the authors are from a nuclear lab so I must question their objectivity. Have you ever heard of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? Mr Redstone,
Didn’t the North Koreans recover plutonium from the waste material from a reactor and build a bomb? Point is that the waste material must be carefully guarded to prevent proliferation; so I have a problem talking about nuclear and true renewables in the same paragraph.Fuel cells produce water, which in fact is very, very valuable in certain parts of the world
I went to your link, the authors are from a nuclear lab so I must question their objectivity.
Have you ever heard of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island?

]]> By: David Redstone http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-112 David Redstone Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:07:11 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-112 I didn't say anything about "letting free markets rule". I am all for subsidizing real renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal. Not hydrogen or fuel cells or microturbines or corn based ethanol. Nuclear power need not produce any excess plutonium that could be used in weapons. You might consider reading about something other than FCs. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf I didn’t say anything about “letting free markets rule”.

I am all for subsidizing real renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal. Not hydrogen or fuel cells or microturbines or corn based ethanol.

Nuclear power need not produce any excess plutonium that could be used in weapons.

You might consider reading about something other than FCs.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

]]> By: John Trocciola http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/new-national-energy-policy/#comment-107 John Trocciola Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:06 +0000 http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/?p=26#comment-107 Your're right for nuclear no greenhouse gases just by product plotonium; that sounds real "good". Folks make nuclear bombs out of that stuff don't they? And let's stop subsidizing nuclear, solar, wind, improved grid (since fossil fuel burners will use it too), tax credits for hybrids ( since they burn a fossil fuel) etc and let the "free" market rule. By the way the only part of the above I really believe is the part about plutonium. Your’re right for nuclear no greenhouse gases just by product plotonium; that sounds real “good”. Folks make nuclear bombs out of that stuff don’t they?
And let’s stop subsidizing nuclear, solar, wind, improved grid (since fossil fuel burners will use it too), tax credits for hybrids ( since they burn a fossil fuel) etc and let the “free” market rule.
By the way the only part of the above I really believe is the part about plutonium.

]]>