Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:
Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

On Feb 2, 10:28*am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:

Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"
as the article seemed half baked, regardless of the merits (or not) of
hydrogen.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:

Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"

Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear of generating a lot of reliable electrictity from non
fossil sources.

as the article seemed half baked, regardless of the merits (or not) of
hydrogen.

Most wiki articles that don't agree with peoples prejudices seem that way.



MBQ

On Feb 2, 11:35*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:

Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"

Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear

Ding!

It's the blanket dismissal, without considering all the options, in
the first three paragraphs that makes the rest of the article suspect.
I've got better things to do.

Most wiki articles that don't agree with peoples prejudices seem that way..

Nothing to do with my prejudices, just sloppy or ill-informed writing.

MBQ

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:

Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"

Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear of generating a lot of reliable electrictity from non
fossil sources.

Actually, although I'm not a wind turbine fan, surely this is one possible
reason to build the things. The reliability of supply is less of an issue
when you have the ability to store energy in the form of hydrogen

In general though, I agree that chasing hydrogen as a cure for all our ills
is akin to joining a gym to get fit. In your heart, you know it's just
displacement activity to stop you doing any *real* exercise that might be
difficult or tiring.

Tim

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:35 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:
Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Yes, it's a half-baked idea.
I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"
Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear

Ding!

It's the blanket dismissal, without considering all the options, in
the first three paragraphs that makes the rest of the article suspect.
I've got better things to do.


No, if ou are talking synthetic fuel, on the premise of cheap
electricity r some otherpower source, you need to look at teh
cost-benefut of hydro CARBON fuel in comparisn.

HydroCARBON fle is a LOT easier to store ad a lot less bulky than hydrogen.

Synthetic diesel and AVJET is probably what we will do finally.

Most wiki articles that don't agree with peoples prejudices seem that way.

Nothing to do with my prejudices, just sloppy or ill-informed writing.


Its only a review of a book. You probably need to read the book..anyway
its several years old, and the hydrogen economy as such is already dead.

Now for the wind economy..



MBQ

Tim Downie wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:

Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"

Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear of generating a lot of reliable electrictity from non
fossil sources.

Actually, although I'm not a wind turbine fan, surely this is one
possible reason to build the things. The reliability of supply is less
of an issue when you have the ability to store energy in the form of
hydrogen


So you reckon to design a plant that can take and use efficiently random
watts off a wind turbine?

Good luck!


In general though, I agree that chasing hydrogen as a cure for all our
ills is akin to joining a gym to get fit. In your heart, you know it's
just displacement activity to stop you doing any *real* exercise that
might be difficult or tiring.

Hydrogen is not an avaiable source of primary energy: It has to be made.
If you have to make it, why not make something more useful?


Tim

On 3/02/2011 1:19 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

Its only a review of a book. You probably need to read the book..anyway its
several years old, and the hydrogen economy as such is already dead.

The "hydrogen economy" idea appealed greatly to people who didn't grasp the fact
the H2 is an energy storage medium, not a source of energy. I actually know
someone like this, a guy who was prepared to believe in the car that is powered
by water. In other respects he seems to be of well-above-average intelligence.

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/02/2011 1:19 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

Its only a review of a book. You probably need to read the
book..anyway its
several years old, and the hydrogen economy as such is already dead.

The "hydrogen economy" idea appealed greatly to people who didn't grasp
the fact the H2 is an energy storage medium, not a source of energy. I
actually know someone like this, a guy who was prepared to believe in
the car that is powered by water. In other respects he seems to be of
well-above-average intelligence.

Chris Huhne?

On Feb 2, 12:20*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

In general though, I agree that chasing hydrogen as a cure for all our
ills is akin to joining a gym to get fit. *In your heart, you know it's
just displacement activity to stop you doing any *real* exercise that
might be difficult or tiring.

Hydrogen is not an avaiable source of primary energy: It has to be made.
If you have to make it, why not make something more useful?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX2RxlXCZKA

Using Lithium to creat an anhydride this chap is able to utilise the
sunlight available in New Mexico to prepare hydrogen for free. It
takes all night to install it into the tanks in the car.

And of course the powers that be don't want you to do this at home
dear.

Meanwhile there is no reason it can't be dissolved in LPG or even
diesel if wanted by the owner. Hydrogen added to a fuel makes a
cleaner faster burn reducing toxic output.

The reason compressed hydrogen isn't used is that it doesn't liquify
easily. I can't see how it can be more dangerous to use than heavier
petroleum gasses though.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:20 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
In general though, I agree that chasing hydrogen as a cure for all our
ills is akin to joining a gym to get fit. In your heart, you know it's
just displacement activity to stop you doing any *real* exercise that
might be difficult or tiring.
Hydrogen is not an avaiable source of primary energy: It has to be made.
If you have to make it, why not make something more useful?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX2RxlXCZKA

Using Lithium to creat an anhydride this chap is able to utilise the
sunlight available in New Mexico to prepare hydrogen for free. It
takes all night to install it into the tanks in the car.

And of course the powers that be don't want you to do this at home
dear.

Meanwhile there is no reason it can't be dissolved in LPG or even
diesel if wanted by the owner. Hydrogen added to a fuel makes a
cleaner faster burn reducing toxic output.

The reason compressed hydrogen isn't used is that it doesn't liquify
easily. I can't see how it can be more dangerous to use than heavier
petroleum gasses though.

Then read up on it and find out. It does liquefy easily, but the result
is a liquid that is not only under very high pressure, but is also
extremely inflammable with a very low flashpoint and has a molecular
size so small that its very very hard to stop it leaking.

Its also very BULKY - too bulky to e.g. be used as aircraft fuel.

Hydrocarbons around the octane or slightly heavier grade pack the most
ergs per cubic wotsit. Rings (benzene et al) are good as well, but
rather toxic.