On 19/01/2020 13:17, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 12:24:47 +0000, Pancho
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 12:22, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* Pancho wrote:
Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas
heating. So
if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the
two
technologies would be well suited.

Make far more sense to use electricity produced by wind power to
heat our
houses directly. I'd guess upgrading the grid rather cheaper than
installing a high pressure pipe network.

The point was hydrogen generation can be used as a battery.

And works with existing domestic infrastructure, boilers and radiators.

Heat pumps may be good for new buildings but converting existing
property would be problematic.

Hydrogen could be used in the existing pipe network.

A hydrogen/methane mix would be closer to old fashioned Town Gas, and
although not carbon-free, would be familiar technology in terms of
distribution and safety (if anyone's around who can remember that far
back!).

Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into
underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up
mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it
comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very
dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been
used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term
peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy
needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year,

OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providingÂ* months energy
supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference
being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient.




The actual answer as with most of this ecobollox, is that if it were
that simple or cheap everyone would be doing it.

Nothing in the ecocollox worldview is new technology. It's all been
around - in the case of wind, for centuries - for some time.

there can be marginal gains in efficiency. But as with cars, its
dimishing retiurms. My current car returns no better mpg than one 50
years ago. But it is much nicer to drive.

The cheapest and sanbes approcah to a low carbon world is massive
invcestment in nuclear power and as much hydro as you can utilise, plus
some interconnects and gas where all else fails.

Unless you have massive hydro already fpor carbon free backup renewables
are pointless. Eben themn only wiond is amywhere approachong cost
effectiveness.

New Zealand is the one place where wind can work by reducing their
rainfall needs. They might get away with hydro and windmills. So long as
they keep their borders closed



--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.