"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 12/08/2019 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 10/08/2019 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone see the irony of the recent power cut?

We are told by Turnip etc that wind power has no place in generating
our
energy. As the wind doesn't blow 24/7.

Yes when we have a technical failure of a large windfarm, and a
conventional generator at the same time, we have a power cut which
effected millions of people.

But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

Sorry, must have missed that. I always thought the plan was multiple
generating plant, not just one big power station.

Eggs, John. Not egg.


Basket, not eggs.

OK then. How would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

Don’t have just one mega nuke, stupid.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:46:08 +1000, jleikppkywk, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


OK then. How would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

Don¢t have just one mega nuke, stupid.

Somebody needs to nuke your big gob, Ozzie troll!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:30:31 +1000, jleikppkywk, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Eggs, John. Not egg.

There is no ONE BASKET with nukes.

There is one senile basket-case with a big mouth though, and that's you,
senile bull**** artist from Oz!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Monday, 12 August 2019 14:41:47 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.

2 yolks in one egg of course

On 12/08/2019 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

Really? Care to provide figures?

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Ah - *just* energy again. The blinkered view.

The point that there would be a net loss of energy involved in
extracting and then using hydrogen is not blinkered. Indeed, ignoring
this would be barking mad.


Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as well
as manufacture on site.

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.


[1] As is that for petroleum...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 11/08/2019 13:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's the plow**** really that stupid?

Do you have so little faith in your argument, that potty mouth insults
are really required?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Monday, 12 August 2019 18:45:00 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/08/2019 14:41, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

how would you translate eggs and basket in this case?

e.g Hinkley C would count as two 1630MW eggs in one basket.
Not really.


It woudl be two compeletely separaqte power stations sharing only a
perimeter fence

If they are sharing such a close location then perhaps they are effectively in the same basket. I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl, but I do hear that you can now (30+ years later) get close enough to the covered reactor to take a selfie as they are offering tours.

On 13/08/2019 23:37, John Rumm wrote:
Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as well
as manufacture on site.

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels.
It is te smallest atom you can get.
It leak through the smallest of holes
It is highly explosive.
It has a very low flashpoint
It needs to be kept under pressure.
It chills when it expands
It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.


It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.

It doesnt make sense even then. Kerosene level hydrocarbons are like
lithium based batteries. They are at the top of the curve between good
and bad compromise.

In terms of energy per unit VOLUME, nice balance between utility and
safety, cleanlisness of burn, they are all 'about right'

Nuclear power shpuld MAKE 'fossil' fuel....

--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

On 13/08/2019 23:39, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2019 13:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's the plow**** really that stupid?

Do you have so little faith in your argument, that potty mouth insults
are really required?


No.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

whisky-dave wrote:

I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with
fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one
sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl
ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

On 14/08/2019 13:58, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with
fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one
sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl
ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

No, I think all were scrammed because of the earthquake and all were
flooded.

Three had core melts. I think the other was offline anyway.

However in the grand scheme of things loss of four reactors was trivial
compared to te damage the Tsunamai caused elsewhere.

You aren't that bothered about a grid blackout 30 feet under te sea.

Of course a tsunai that big in the North sea would take out every single
offshore wind farm there is. But since Fukushima, probably no nukes.

It is of course an argument for having lots of baskets with one to four
eggs in..

Of course diversity is something people are pretty clueless about.

Back in the early days of the Internet, we noticed one day that all IP
packets to the North of England were being routed via I think Norway.

Manchester was a big centre, and it was linked to london by two
different companies and via 8 different 'diverse' routes with 4
different fibre comnpanies.

Unfortunately they all used the same bit of optical fibre bunch up the
M1 that a digger had just taken out

Diversity for its own sake is meaningless. You need to examine how many
single points of failure there are.

With wind, it is the wind itself.
With solar, it is the daylight.
With Hydro, it is the rain
With fossil fuel, it is the fuel supply


There is no single point of failure for nuclear power, except political
interference.

you can stockpile 100 years of fuel easily and with no huge expense.



--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 15:11:01 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Diversity for its own sake is meaningless. You need to examine how many
single points of failure there are.

and how often it happens

With wind, it is the wind itself.

very frequent

With solar, it is the daylight.

every day

With Hydro, it is the rain

less frequent

With fossil fuel, it is the fuel supply

rarely

There is no single point of failure for nuclear power, except political
interference.

you can stockpile 100 years of fuel easily and with no huge expense.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

No, I think all were scrammed because of the earthquake and all were
flooded.

Chernobyl, not Fukushima ... and apparently the other units did operate
after 1986 until the last one shut down un 2000 (wouldn't surprise me if
they were shutdown in the immediate aftermath and then restarted)

On 14/08/2019 15:14, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 15:11:01 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Diversity for its own sake is meaningless. You need to examine how many
single points of failure there are.

and how often it happens

With wind, it is the wind itself.

very frequent

With solar, it is the daylight.

every day

With Hydro, it is the rain

less frequent

With fossil fuel, it is the fuel supply

rarely

There is no single point of failure for nuclear power, except political
interference.

you can stockpile 100 years of fuel easily and with no huge expense.

A potential single point of failure with nuclear is a flaw to a single
design, requiring shut down for remedial action, due to risk of failure.
Reactor cracks etc.

This is why earlier posts to the thread advocate multiple reactor designs.

This risk obviously becomes smaller as the technology matures and hence
becomes better understood.

On 14/08/2019 15:21, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

No, I think all were scrammed because of the earthquake and all were
flooded.

Chernobyl, not Fukushima ... and apparently the other units did operate
after 1986 until the last one shut down un 2000 (wouldn't surprise me if
they were shutdown in the immediate aftermath and then restarted)

Sorry, Senior moment - I could have sworn you actually said Fukushima


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 14/08/2019 15:24, Pancho wrote:
On 14/08/2019 15:14, wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 15:11:01 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Diversity for its own sake is meaningless. You need to examine how many
single points of failure there are.

and how often it happens

With wind, it is the wind itself.

very frequent

With solar, it is the daylight.

every day

With Hydro, it is the rain

less frequent

With fossil fuel, it is the fuel supply

rarely

There is no single point of failure for nuclear power, except political
interference.

you can stockpileÂ* 100 years of fuel easily and with no huge expense.

A potential single point of failure with nuclear is a flaw to a single
design, requiring shut down for remedial action, due to risk of failure.
Reactor cracks etc.


But it isnt a single point of failure is it?

Reactor crcks are expected and normal and are ultimately what brings a
reactors working life to a close.

You dont shut down a whole fleet just because one is cracjed unless
there is a political fuss kicked up by activists.


This is why earlier posts to the thread advocate multiple reactor designs.

That is a reasonable sane position, but incerases costs.

This risk obviously becomes smaller as the technology matures and hence
becomes better understood.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:

I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with
fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one
sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl

ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

Yes they did, but had to be shut down later when it was too
dangerous to still be that close to the one which went bang.

On 14/08/2019 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/2019 23:37, John Rumm wrote:
Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as
well as manufacture on site.

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels

apart from all the ones that are of course...

It is te smallest atom you can get.

and?

It leak through the smallest of holes
It is highly explosive.

So is petrol.

It has a very low flashpoint

and petrol

It needs to be kept under pressure.

Like any liquefied gas then

It chills when it expands

Like any liquefied gas then

It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.

Higher than batteries though...

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.

It doesnt make sense even then.

Others would disagree with you... time will tell.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 20:18:56 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/08/2019 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/2019 23:37, John Rumm wrote:

Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as
well as manufacture on site.

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels

apart from all the ones that are of course...

It is te smallest atom you can get.

and?

It leak through the smallest of holes
It is highly explosive.

So is petrol.

It has a very low flashpoint

and petrol

It needs to be kept under pressure.

Like any liquefied gas then

It chills when it expands

Like any liquefied gas then

It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.

Higher than batteries though...

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.

It doesnt make sense even then.

Others would disagree with you... time will tell.

The main problem with hydrogen is that's it's solely a way to turn one fuel or power source into another - at cost & inefficiency, AND it's harder to deal with than the other fuels we use. So the future prospects for H2 fuel are close to zero. It's only going to become useful if it's generated from no other fuel source in some way. One distant possibility is solar panels that float on the sea producing hydrogen rather than electrons.


NT

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 05:15:29 +1000, Sewer, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

Yes they did, but

Nobody talked to you, senile pest!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 14/08/2019 11:35, whisky-dave wrote:
If they are sharing such a close location then perhaps they are effectively in the same basket. I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl, but I do hear that you can now (30+ years later) get close enough to the covered reactor to take a selfie as they are offering tours.

Well, yes one with a shared fence with Fukushima wouldn't be running. On
account of having been hit with the same tsunami... but we don't have them.

Andy

On 14/08/2019 20:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/08/2019 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/2019 23:37, John Rumm wrote:
Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1],
it does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used
and deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as
used for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution
as well as manufacture on site.

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels

apart from all the ones that are of course...

It is te smallest atom you can get.

and?

It leak through the smallest of holes
It is highly explosive.

So is petrol.
No

It has a very low flashpoint

and petrol
No.


It needs to be kept under pressure.

Like any liquefied gas then

It chills when it expands

Like any liquefied gas then

It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.

Higher than batteries though...

No.

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.

It doesnt make sense even then.

Others would disagree with you... time will tell.


*shriug*.

Its just more unicorn fart and pixie dust.

No one is using it. Guess why?





--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 14/08/2019 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/2019 23:37, John Rumm wrote:
Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as
well as manufacture on site.

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels.
It is te smallest atom you can get.
It leak through the smallest of holes

But not that fast through metal piping and metal to metal joints. Until
we had carbon canisters and sealed petrol tank lids, we lost fuel duel
to evaporation too.

It is highly explosive.
It has a very low flashpoint

Yes. However, the tanks used have little chance of leaks and the fuel
cell could presumably be mounted with the tank to minimise joints and
potential movement. If it leaks, it rapidly disperses, whereas petrol
has a fairly immobile and highly explosive vapour bubble around any leak.

It needs to be kept under pressure.
It chills when it expands

As for any liquified gas - although Hydrogen is harder.

It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.

From the charts I have just looked at, petrol is about 3.4 times better
than Hydrogen - however, a Hydrogen fuel cell and electric motors are
about 2.6 times as efficient as a petrol engine ... so the difference is
not huge.

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.

It doesnt make sense even then. Kerosene level hydrocarbons are like
lithium based batteries. They are at the top of the curve between good
and bad compromise.

It does make sense, as a "clean" fuel that due to the efficiencies is
not much worse than petrol per unit volume.

In terms of energy per unit VOLUME, nice balance between utility and
safety, cleanlisness of burn, they are all 'about right'

Nuclear power shpuld MAKE 'fossil' fuel....

While that would solve the supply of fuel and, done right, be close to
CO2 neutral, it would still produce many of the airborne pollutants that
we would be better without.

SteveW

On 14/08/2019 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/2019 13:58, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with
fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one
sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl
ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

No, I think all were scrammed because of the earthquake and all were
flooded.

Three had core melts. I think the other was offline anyway.

No. Reactor 4 exploded in the early hours of the morning. Reactor 3
continued to run and was not shut down until 5am the *following*
morning, while reactors 1 and 2 ran for another 24 hours. The effect on
supplies was therefore manageable.

All three were put back into use for some years.

2 was shutdown in 1991 due to fire damage (the reactor was not
affected). 1 was shutdown in 1997 and 3 in 2000 - both due to pressure
from the West and promises of EU aid. All three are undergoing
decommissioning, defueling and, eventually, demolition.

SteveW

On 14/08/2019 22:12, Steve Walker wrote:
From the charts I have just looked at, petrol is about 3.4 times better
than Hydrogen - however, a Hydrogen fuel cell and electric motors are
about 2.6 times as efficient as a petrol engine ... so the difference is
not huge.
ok, si9nce a IC engine tehse days is about 40% efficvient a fuel cell
and motir must be..

TADA!

100% effiucient.

Oh dear.

In fact fuel cells at usable power levels are very inefficient.

Guess why no one uses them


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 14/08/2019 21:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No one is using it. Guess why?

Because you have been taking lessons from harry?

Does "no one" include Toyota, Hyundai and Mercedes?

https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/new-mirai/

https://www.hyundai.co.uk/about-us/e...ogen-fuel-cell

https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaS...l?oid=41813012





--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 15/08/2019 09:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/2019 22:12, Steve Walker wrote:
Â*From the charts I have just looked at, petrol is about 3.4 times
better than Hydrogen - however, a Hydrogen fuel cell and electric
motors are about 2.6 times as efficient as a petrol engine ... so the
difference is not huge.

ok, si9nce a IC engine tehse days is about 40% efficvient a fuel cell
and motir must be..

TADA!

100% effiucient.

Oh dear.

You seem to be confusing engine efficiency with complete fuel cycle
efficiency.

Petrol efficiency when you look at the whole oil extraction, refining,
distribution cycle, in addition to the engine efficiency is around only
15%, and hydrogen full cycle efficiency is ~25%.

Of course that misses the key point that efficiency does not actually
matter anyway - objectively, both are crap, but it has never hindered
use of petrol.

To real people, what matters is the whole ownership experience. They are
used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5 mins
refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is an
experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

They are used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5
mins refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is an
experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.

Yes, but with only 11 hydrogen stations in the UK, I doubt many will be
queuing-up to buy a mirai ...

On 15/08/2019 11:20, Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

They are used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5
mins refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is
an experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.

Yes, but with only 11 hydrogen stations in the UK, I doubt many will be
queuing-up to buy a mirai ...

Hence the comment about appropriate infrastructure. It would only take
one oil company to get behind it and deploy at a proportion of their
existing filling stations for that situation to change dramatically. One
may decide its a way for them to stay relevant and part of the supply
chain in an electric driven future.

While Toyota are unique in prioritising HFCELL over battery only EVs (in
fact I am not sure they even have any battery only EVs?), quite a number
of other makers are considering a move into the market as a hedge
against the looming supply constraints on EV batteries.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 15/08/2019 10:43, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/08/2019 21:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No one is using it. Guess why?

Because you have been taking lessons from harry?

Does "no one" include Toyota, Hyundai and Mercedes?

https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/new-mirai/

https://www.hyundai.co.uk/about-us/e...ogen-fuel-cell

https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaS...l?oid=41813012




Oh purlease.

That manufacturers announce does not mean that product exists or that it
is a commercial success

Just LOOK at the bollox in the Hyundai link

"Hydrogen is the key to a future of sustainable motoring."

Bollox.

¨ Making up approximately 75% of the universe we live in, its in
abundance compared to the finite fossil fuels used by combustion engine
cars."

I mean what **** are they on?

Its abundance as an element is not relevant.

Its how much energy it takes to cerate it an elemantal form....

" The process of passing hydrogen through a fuel cell creates energy
much more efficiently than the chemicals used in gasoline"

Basically a lie. Fuel cells are NOT efficeint at high power levels

"It can also store the energy it creates unlike the electricity needed
to power electric cars."

Excuse me? what the **** is a battery, then?

"Finding an infinite and efficient resource for powering cars is essential."

No, it isn't. And it is impossible. The universe has finite free energy
ands its dying a heat death.

"However, the most important reason to develop hydrogen fuel cell
technology is that each vehicle produces zero exhaust emissions."

Another lie. It produces water.

The lowest emissoin bevehicle is a nuclear grid cahrged BEV.

" With only clean and recyclable by-products emitted through driving"

Rathe neagtes the previous statement?

"the result is a sustainable motoring future."

Utter bollox.

I mean do you really BELIEVE this virtue signalling ****?








--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 15/08/2019 11:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 09:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/2019 22:12, Steve Walker wrote:
Â*From the charts I have just looked at, petrol is about 3.4 times
better than Hydrogen - however, a Hydrogen fuel cell and electric
motors are about 2.6 times as efficient as a petrol engine ... so the
difference is not huge.

ok, si9nce a IC engine tehse days is about 40% efficvient a fuel cell
and motir must be..

TADA!

100% effiucient.

Oh dear.

You seem to be confusing engine efficiency with complete fuel cycle
efficiency.

Petrol efficiency when you look at the whole oil extraction, refining,
distribution cycle, in addition to the engine efficiency is around only
15%, and hydrogen full cycle efficiency is ~25%.

You seem to be confusing engine efficiency with complete fuel cycle
efficiency.

hydrogen *production* efficeiency is down in the 25% mnark

fuels cells are at senevbile p;ower levels very inefficient.


Of course that misses the key point that efficiency does not actually
matter anyway - objectively, both are crap, but it has never hindered
use of petrol.

To real people, what matters is the whole ownership experience. They are
used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5 mins
refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is an
experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.

At 5 times the cost.







--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 15/08/2019 13:07, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 11:20, Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

They are used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5
mins refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is
an experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.

Yes, but with only 11 hydrogen stations in the UK, I doubt many will
be queuing-up to buy a mirai ...

Hence the comment about appropriate infrastructure. It would only take
one oil company to get behind it and deploy at a proportion of their
existing filling stations for that situation to change dramatically. One
may decide its a way for them to stay relevant and part of the supply
chain in an electric driven future.

Why on earth would they do that?

They are primary energy companies.
Hydrogen is secondary energy, and its a bitch to handle =- weher are
they goiung to buy it from amyway?

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.



While Toyota are unique in prioritising HFCELL over battery only EVs (in
fact I am not sure they even have any battery only EVs?), quite a number
of other makers are considering a move into the market as a hedge
against the looming supply constraints on EV batteries.

*shrug* guess what. whatever the future holds it wont be what is in your
marketing drivel.
..




--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why on earth would they do that?
They are primary energy companies.

e.g. BP changing their slogan to 'beyond petroleum' and having a green
flower for a logo doesn't show where they expect to reposition? though
they shutdown their photovoltaics dept.

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.

On 15/08/2019 10:43, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/08/2019 21:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No one is using it. Guess why?

Because you have been taking lessons from harry?

Does "no one" include Toyota, Hyundai and Mercedes?

https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/new-mirai/

https://www.hyundai.co.uk/about-us/e...ogen-fuel-cell

https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaS...l?oid=41813012

There are a handful but they are decidedly experimental. The problems of
handling very high pressure hydrogen gas and not poisoning fuel cells
means that they are mostly concept vehicles rather then production ones.

Running cars on natural gas or methanol is a more practical proposition.

I was at a green energy promotion held in Trafalgar Square where there
were several large scale fuel cell systems that claimed to be able to
power phone exchanges. But not one of them was working. Power to the
entire exhibition was provided by several noisy smelly diesel electric
generators on tickover. I was impressed with the electric motorbike.

The only fuel cells actually running to make power at the event were the
educational toys intended for school science projects driving LEDs.
I found this profoundly disappointing YMMV.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , at 11:20:18 on Thu, 15
Aug 2019, Andy Burns remarked:

They are used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5
mins refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is
an experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.

Yes, but with only 11 hydrogen stations in the UK, I doubt many will be
queuing-up to buy a mirai ...

And to some extent the failure of LPG to get to a critical mass has
prejudiced the chances of the next "wonder fuel" whatever it is.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/08/2019 13:32, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why on earth would they do that? They are primary energy companies.

e.g. BP changing their slogan to 'beyond petroleum' and having a green
flower for a logo doesn't show where they expect to reposition?

No. It is pure virtue signalling.
Did it fool you?

though
they shutdown their photovoltaics dept.

Exactly.



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 15/08/2019 13:47, 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.

Bloody expensive and innefficient way to do it though


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 15/08/2019 13:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:20:18 on Thu, 15
Aug 2019, Andy Burns remarked:

They are used to a world where you stop at a petrol station, spend 5
mins refuelling and get another 300 miles of range or better. That is
anÂ* experience that fuel cell systems could match with appropriate
infrastructure.

Yes, but with only 11 hydrogen stations in the UK, I doubt many will
be queuing-up to buy a mirai ...

And to some extent the failure of LPG to get to a critical mass has
prejudiced the chances of the next "wonder fuel" whatever it is.

has to be aroudn 2000 when I attended an 'alternative energy ' cionference.

ALL these technologies were discussed and not one of them was viable
economically, technically, or both.


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/08/2019 13:47, 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.

Bloody expensive and innefficient way to do it though

Apart from flooding valleys, how else would you store electical energy in
reasonable quantities?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle