On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 20:18:56 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/08/2019 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/2019 23:37, John Rumm wrote:

Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as
well as manufacture on site.

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels

apart from all the ones that are of course...

It is te smallest atom you can get.

and?

It leak through the smallest of holes
It is highly explosive.

So is petrol.

It has a very low flashpoint

and petrol

It needs to be kept under pressure.

Like any liquefied gas then

It chills when it expands

Like any liquefied gas then

It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.

Higher than batteries though...

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.

It doesnt make sense even then.

Others would disagree with you... time will tell.

The main problem with hydrogen is that's it's solely a way to turn one fuel or power source into another - at cost & inefficiency, AND it's harder to deal with than the other fuels we use. So the future prospects for H2 fuel are close to zero. It's only going to become useful if it's generated from no other fuel source in some way. One distant possibility is solar panels that float on the sea producing hydrogen rather than electrons.


NT