On 15/08/2019 15:13, Pancho wrote:
On 15/08/2019 14:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
Pancho wrote:

On 15/08/2019 13:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its the same as a battery. You need primary energy to charge your
hydrogen tanks.

Probably by electrolysing water using grid electricity from coaal and
gat power staions.

No comment on the viability of Hydrogen fuel cells but surely
electrolysing water is something intermittent renewable sources are
suitable for, i.e. in the UK = wind.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.


Yes, but the devil is in the detail. How much it costs to have a
hydrogen production operation lying idle. How much it costs to generate
wind electricity. How much it costs to integrate wind energy into the grid.

I don't know the economic answers. It just seems that, theoretically,
hydrogen production is a potential answer to the obvious problem of wind
variability.


But the cheapest solution to that problem is to stop paying subsidies on
museum tgarde technology and build nukes instead

It is even possible that hydrogen production could be coupled with
hydrogen power generation to balance wind variability, with only the
surplus hydrogen going to power cars.

I don't know the answers but it is an interesting problem.


No, its a very boringt propblerm if te quality of 'if we only had a dead
rabbit and potatoes for diunner, what would we use to flavour it' sort

We have better than that. The question is academic.

Only the EU is insisting on 'renewables' We are leaving the EU. There is
no earthly reason why we would therefore schackle ourselves to expensive
mediaeval technology when we will have control of our own nuclear authority.

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for cars
due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and maybe
explosion risk. .

Exactly. Far better to make synthetic diesel. With nukes.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.