Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre you saying that we don't have to dig oil out of the ground or
Yes. And the sun gets the energy from the potential nuclear energy in hydrogen atoms. Do you have a point? In no way are humans involved in the process. Nature just makes oil which humans can then use. Nature does not make full fuel cells; people have to make them themselves by harnessing solar energy. The source of the energy as far as humans are concerned are not the fuel cells, while oil is a source of energy as far as humans are concerned.
treat it in any way??
n.b. IMO humans ARE part of nature and the sun IS energy.
edit. Complex carbohydrates are products of nature as is Hydrogen
and Oxygen.
Both require human effort to obtain and refine.
The fuel cell does not produce energy but releases it. As does burning oil.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWe don't need to dig oil out of the ground or treat it in any way for it to contain stored potential energy, no. For a fuel cell to contain stored potential energy, human beings have to put it in there. That's the difference.
Are you saying that we don't have to dig oil out of the ground or
treat it in any way??
n.b. IMO humans ARE part of nature and the sun IS energy.
edit. Complex carbohydrates are products of nature as is Hydrogen
and Oxygen.
Both require human effort to obtain and refine.
The fuel cell does not produce energy but releases it. As does burning oil.
Oxygen doesn't require humans. There was free oxygen while we were still amphibians. Same for complex carbohydrates. The plants do it themselves.
Humans are indeed a part of nature. So instead of "nature" we can insert "nature minus the involvement of human technology".
By your argument, batteries are an energy source. You can just walk into the supermarket and buy energy! Let's stop worrying about fossil fuels. We can make as many batteries as we want! Why do we even need fuel cells? We already have batteries. They have unlimited energy too - just plug the rechargable kind into the wall and you have more energy in your battery! Infinite energy! Wow!
As far as I am concerned, an "energy source" is something that contains potential energy without human technology being involved. It's where humans get energy from; we can then manipulate it, store it, separate the fractions of the oil, change it to different forms of energy, or screw around with it in any number of other ways. But humans have to get our mitts on the energy in the first place somehow. Fuel cells are not where we get energy as a species; they are a means of storing energy which we got from an energy source.
A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device similar to a battery, differing in that it is designed for continuous replenishment of the reactants consumed; i.e. it produces electricity from an external supply of fuel and oxygen as opposed to the limited internal energy storage capacity of a battery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cells
Notice how the fuel cell REQUIRES FUEL and how it's described as an ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICE. What kind of energy source needs fuel?Is an automobile an "energy source"? You can use it to pull things out of ditches, which requires an input of energy. Or is it an energy conversion device which converts chemical potential energy in gasoline (the energy SOURCE) into gravitational potential energy when it pulls things out of ditches?
just what we need, people toting around jars of methanol to fuel their laptops with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol
"Methanol is intoxicating but not directly poisonous. It is toxic by its breakdown (toxication) by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver by forming formic acid and formaldehyde which cause blindness by destruction of the optic nerve. [2] Methanol ingestion can also be fatal due to its CNS depressant properties in the same manner as ethanol poisoning. It enters the body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin. Fetal tissue will not tolerate methanol. Dangerous doses will build up if a person is regularly exposed to vapors or handles liquid without skin protection. If methanol has been ingested, a doctor should be contacted immediately. The usual fatal dose: 100–125 mL (4 fl oz). Toxic effects take hours to start, and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage. This is treated using ethanol or fomepizole[3]. Either of these drugs acts to slow down the action of alcohol dehydrogenase on methanol by means of competitive inhibition, so that it is excreted by the kidneys rather than being transformed into toxic metabolites. Though it is miscible with water, methanol is very hard to wash off the skin; it is best to treat methanol like gasoline.
The initial symptoms of methanol intoxication are those of central nervous system depression: headache, dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, confusion, drowsiness, and with suffiently large doses, unconsciousness and death. The initial symptoms of methanol exposure are usually less severe than the symptoms resulting from the ingestion of a similar quantity of ethyl alcohol.
Once the initial symptoms have passed, a second set of symptoms arises 10–30 hours after the initial exposure to methanol: blurring or complete loss of vision, together with acidosis. These symptoms result from the accumulation of toxic levels of formate in the bloodstream, and may progress to death by respiratory failure. The ester derivatives of methanol do not share this toxicity."
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOil requires an energy source too.
We don't need to dig oil out of the ground or treat it in any way for it to contain stored potential energy, no. For a fuel cell to contain stored potential energy, human beings have to put it in there. That's the difference.
Oxygen doesn't require humans. There was free oxygen while we were still amphibians. Same for complex carbohydrates. The pla y SOURCE) into gravitational potential energy when it pulls things out of ditches?
It needs to be dug out of the ground and ignited.
I know this is a far cry from refining pure Oxygen and Hydrogen
but the principles are the same.
I'm probably just being pedantic but the energy released from oil
is not in the endothermic act of breaking carbohydrates but in the
exothermic act of free radicals reacting with the constituate molecules
of air. Just as a fuel cell is.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat do you think fossil fuels are? Only the stored energy from photosynthesis.
Fuel cells are for energy storage.
Personally, I think the most exciting thing is that they managed to fully characterise PSII from photosynthesis. If it can be recreated in the lab it'll be cheap hydrogen all round!
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut humans didn't store the energy in the oil. The oil provides more energy than it took to aquire it and put it into usable form, while the fuel cell will provide less energy than that which is used to make it due to the impossibilty of converting energy perfectly effeciently.
What do you think fossil fuels are? Only the stored energy from photosynthesis.
Personally, I think the most exciting thing is that they managed to fully characterise PSII from photosynthesis. If it can be recreated in the lab it'll be cheap hydrogen all round!
Fuel cell = oil
Solar Panels = plants
The humans had to make the solar panels in order to catch the sunlight and use it. The fossil fuels did this part itself when it was in plant form. That's what I mean by energy source; the form the energy is in last before humans changed the form of the energy. In this respect, fossil fuels are a fuel source, as the energy is still in chemical potential energy form with the molecules unchanged until it's combusted in an engine or cracked or whatever, but fuel cells are not, since the energy was in sunlight form before humans changed it to electrical energy in the solar panel, not chemical or electrical potential energy form as it exists in the fuel cell.
Anyway, this conversation is boring me. We use the same phrase differently, and I don't care that much about changing your mind, so let's stop talking about this.