On 18/01/2020 18:00:59, % wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 09:50, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently
unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more
cost effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting


No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not

Thats not a marginal cost, its a capital cost.

the staff required and the maintenance is a capital cost?

No extra staff required to go that route instead of electrolysis.

or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Neither could you
*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

Sounds like another lost argument.