On 18/01/2020 09:15, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2020 16:28:39 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2020 16:22:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2020 10:01:43 UTC, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx 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

Efficiency is nothing to do with money.
It can be. It would be a waste of money making vast quantities of
hydrogen reliably in virtually any other way, unless you want to burn
fossil fuels.

Efficiency is a ratio of useful energy out from a system divided by energy in.

Eg a boiler might be 90% efficient. ie 90% of the fuel used is converted to useful heat.

A steam locomotive might be 5% efficient. 5% of the chemical energy in the coal is converted to mechanical energy at the wheels.

Efficiency is an exact technical term.

Money is nothing whatever to do with it.

Agreed, however it is what actually matters.

Currently the petroleum fuel cycle is massively "inefficient" in energy
terms; by the time you have located and developed the oil reserve,
extracted, transported, refined, and burnt the fuel in internal
combustion engine you are getting a tiny percentage efficiency. Yet no
one cares at the point of use since it works, and its a means to an end.

If you have abundant, cheap, clean electricity, and can turn that into
transport and heating with an IC engine or a fuel cell, then the
efficiencies don't matter there either if it does the job, and people
can afford it.

If however its ten times the price of a fossil fuel alternative, then
its going to be difficult to get anyone to buy into it.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/