Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Yes, I only know of one LPG station in this city, maybe there are others
that I haven't noticed ... seems there a 3 (or 4 counting one on the
motorway)

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.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.

--

Roger Hayter

In message , at 14:21:33 on Thu, 15
Aug 2019, Andy Burns remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Yes, I only know of one LPG station in this city, maybe there are
others that I haven't noticed ... seems there a 3 (or 4 counting one on
the motorway)

And I bet none are at a supermarket, selling for 10% off the
BP-franchise price.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/08/2019 14:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.


Yes, but the devil is in the detail. How much it costs to have a
hydrogen production operation lying idle. How much it costs to generate
wind electricity. How much it costs to integrate wind energy into the grid.

I don't know the economic answers. It just seems that, theoretically,
hydrogen production is a potential answer to the obvious problem of wind
variability.

It is even possible that hydrogen production could be coupled with
hydrogen power generation to balance wind variability, with only the
surplus hydrogen going to power cars.

I don't know the answers but it is an interesting problem.

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for cars
due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and maybe
explosion risk. .

On 15/08/2019 14:18, charles wrote:
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?

Uranium is pretty good., Comes already charged up.

Of course the obvious answer is 'I wouldn't'

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

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

On 15/08/2019 14:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.

It is the ontrinsic problem of intermittent reneables., The high peak to
mean ratio is inefficient in terms of capital resources, Build for the
peaks, get returns from te mean#

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 15/08/2019 15:13, Pancho wrote:
On 15/08/2019 14:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.


Yes, but the devil is in the detail. How much it costs to have a
hydrogen production operation lying idle. How much it costs to generate
wind electricity. How much it costs to integrate wind energy into the grid.

I don't know the economic answers. It just seems that, theoretically,
hydrogen production is a potential answer to the obvious problem of wind
variability.


But the cheapest solution to that problem is to stop paying subsidies on
museum tgarde technology and build nukes instead

It is even possible that hydrogen production could be coupled with
hydrogen power generation to balance wind variability, with only the
surplus hydrogen going to power cars.

I don't know the answers but it is an interesting problem.


No, its a very boringt propblerm if te quality of 'if we only had a dead
rabbit and potatoes for diunner, what would we use to flavour it' sort

We have better than that. The question is academic.

Only the EU is insisting on 'renewables' We are leaving the EU. There is
no earthly reason why we would therefore schackle ourselves to expensive
mediaeval technology when we will have control of our own nuclear authority.

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for cars
due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and maybe
explosion risk. .

Exactly. Far better to make synthetic diesel. With nukes.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

Pancho wrote:

theoretically, hydrogen production is a potential answer to the obvious
problem of wind variability

Unlikely to end up cheap though, the wind farms already have their
subsidy, no doubt the hydrogen farms will lobby for a subsidy on top ...

In article ,
Andy Burns 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 ...

Well, we seem a bit short of nuclear power stations at the moment. To
provide all that constant cheap electricity everyone wants. Remember when
it was going to be too cheap to bother metering?

--
*I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it..

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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..

More like 30%.

35% for GDI.

TADA!

100% effiucient.

Oh dear.

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

Guess why no one uses them

60% is perfectly possible. I know of work that has produced higher
efficiencies than that ... the limiting factor is cost as that vehicle
cost over £2.5m The work colleague who was driving it for a few weeks
was scared of the cost.

SteveW

On 15/08/2019 20:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/08/2019 14:18, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* 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?

You don't store electrical energy by flooding valleys, you store energy.

Haven't you come across a flow battery?

SteveW

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/08/2019 14:18, charles wrote:
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?

You don't store electrical energy by flooding valleys, you store energy.

Very true, but you use electrical energy to fill the valley and when it is
allowed out electrical energy is created.

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

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/08/2019 14:18, charles wrote:
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?

You don't store electrical energy by flooding valleys, you store energy.

Very true, but you use electrical energy to fill the valley and when it is
allowed out electrical energy is created.

Only if you pass the water through a generator. If you just open the
sluices you get nothing.

You xould drive all sorts of machines if you wanted to. There is a
waterwheel driven blast furnace near us. Not in use, obviously.

--

Roger Hayter

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

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

What a stupid statement, if its more efficient at low power then you
make it bigger and it will be just as efficient.


Of course you can charge a betteryin minutes if you want to and make
hydrogen redundant.

You use a liquid to store the energy add to fill up you suck the used
fluid out of one tank and put the fresh fluid in the other reusing the
stuff you sucked out at the filling station.

No need for standard sizes just standard connectors and control.

liquid battery technology is a better investment for research than
hydrogen fule cells both for the grid and vehicles.

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.


But nowhere as good as superheating steam using nukes and then breaking
into hydrogen and oxygen.
Most of the energy comes from the cooling of the reactor.
The rest from electricity.

The french wouldn't need to shut their reactors down when its hot if
they were designed that way.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Yes, I only know of one LPG station in this city, maybe there are others
that I haven't noticed ... seems there a 3 (or 4 counting one on the
motorway)

All of ours do LPG and the entire taxi fleet is LPG powered.

"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2019 14:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.


Yes, but the devil is in the detail. How much it costs to have a hydrogen
production operation lying idle. How much it costs to generate wind
electricity. How much it costs to integrate wind energy into the grid.

I don't know the economic answers. It just seems that, theoretically,
hydrogen production is a potential answer to the obvious problem of wind
variability.

Not when you still have to compress it and move it to where
you plan to use it.

If it does ever make sense to use hydrogen as a transport
fuel, and thats very unlikely, it makes a lot more sense to
use nukes to generate it directly and not via electrolysis.

And even that only makes sense because it is likely to be
much less polluting that making say methanol using nukes.

It is even possible that hydrogen production could be coupled with
hydrogen power generation to balance wind variability, with only the
surplus hydrogen going to power cars.

But again, not economically viable instead of nukes.

I don't know the answers but it is an interesting problem.

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for cars
due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and maybe
explosion risk. .

On Thursday, 15 August 2019 11:12:05 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

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.

Refineries could be eliminated from the vehicle fuel cycle. Engines have most of what they need to produce their own fuel from light sweet crude as they run. There are also IC engines that can run on LSC, so starting on it doesn't seem undoable. Maybe in future cars will drop the leftover tar into potholes as they go


NT

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:16:18 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile smartass' latest smartassing

....and nothing's left! LOL

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

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:59:31 +1000, Sewer, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


All of ours

"Ours", you clinically insane senile Australian asshole? There's NO "ours"
for you! Even Australians think you are a senile piece of ****!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thursday, 15 August 2019 13:32:14 UTC+1, 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? though
they shutdown their photovoltaics dept.

Yes, it shows they expect to reposition themselves as fossil fuel companies that greenies accept by pretending to look for alternatives. It makes no real sense but so what.

To think that a fossil fuel company, whose one huge profit source is fossil fuel, is looking to move away from fossils would be hilariously naive.


NT

On Thursday, 15 August 2019 13:49:47 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
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.

they aren't experimental cars, they're promotional cars. Anyone that understands the basics of H2 power realises they ain't happening. Mfrs know that perfectly well.


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.

maybe your expectations were out of line with the reality.

On Thursday, 15 August 2019 15:14:00 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:

Yes, but the devil is in the detail. How much it costs to have a
hydrogen production operation lying idle. How much it costs to generate
wind electricity. How much it costs to integrate wind energy into the grid.

I don't know the economic answers. It just seems that, theoretically,
hydrogen production is a potential answer to the obvious problem of wind
variability.

It is even possible that hydrogen production could be coupled with
hydrogen power generation to balance wind variability, with only the
surplus hydrogen going to power cars.

I don't know the answers but it is an interesting problem.

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for cars
due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and maybe
explosion risk. .

There is only one economic answer: diesel. It might not be what the green leaning want to hear, but it's the reality.


NT

On 15/08/2019 23:52, wrote:

they aren't experimental cars, they're promotional cars. Anyone that
understands the basics of H2 power realises they ain't happening.
Mfrs know that perfectly well.

You had better go tell Toyota, they seem to be betting the farm on it.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

Kind of meaningless in the context, and especially if you are going to
move away from burning primary fuels in cars.

Hydrogen is secondary energy, and its a bitch to handle

At one time so was petrol, and so is spent uranium. That does not mean
the problems are unsolvable.

=- weher are
they goiung to buy it from amyway?

I would expect them to make it.

Its the same as a battery. You need primary energy to charge your
hydrogen tanks.

Of course.

Probably by electrolysing water using grid electricity from coaal and
gat power staions.

In many cases, sure. Same as that used to charge your BEV.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 16/08/2019 11:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 23:52, wrote:

they aren't experimental cars, they're promotional cars. Anyone that
understands the basics of H2 power realises they ain't happening.
Mfrs know that perfectly well.

You had better go tell Toyota, they seem to be betting the farm on it.


Who told you that?
Toyota?
Yeah, right....


--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 16/08/2019 12:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 13:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Kind of meaningless in the context, and especially if you are going to
move away from burning primary fuels in cars.
No, very meanaingful


Hydrogen is secondary energy, and its a bitch to handle

At one time so was petrol, and so is spent uranium. That does not mean
the problems are unsolvable.

No, neither are a bitch to handle at all

=- weher are they goiung to buy it from amyway?

I would expect them to make it.

Its the same as a battery. You need primary energy to charge your
hydrogen tanks.

Of course.

Probably by electrolysing water using grid electricity from coaal and
gat power staions.

In many cases, sure. Same as that used to charge your BEV.


At far worse efficiency






--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 15/08/2019 14:08, 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

The inefficiencies are not really relevant if ultimately you can deliver
a convenient and easy to live with solution to the end user. (be that
with H, flow batteries, a large pack of AAs or whatever)

The petroleum fuel cycle is also massively inefficient, but I am sure I
am not alone in caring not a jot when I go to fill up.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 15/08/2019 14:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

The problem with that is having plant and employees lying idle when
there isn't any wind.

One of the failings of intermittent generators generally. It does not
seem to stop the buggers building em though.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 15/08/2019 17:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Only the EU is insisting on 'renewables' We are leaving the EU.

I will believe that when I see it...

There is
no earthly reason why we would therefore schackle ourselves to expensive
mediaeval technology when we will have control of our own nuclear
authority.

Then we can go buy it from the French (since we killed our indigenous
nuclear generation expertise with decades of dithering and pandering to
NIMBYs)

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for
cars due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and
maybe explosion risk. .

Exactly. Far better to make synthetic diesel. With nukes.

Yup, don't want to miss out on all those lovely particulates and nitrous
oxides.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 15/08/2019 13:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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

It depends on how you produce it.

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.

At the moment a full tank of H2 is around £50 - £80, about what I pay
for petrol. I am sure I could spend far less on fuel if I bought an EV,
but that alone is not enough incentive to make my buy one.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 16/08/2019 12:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 17:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Only the EU is insisting on 'renewables' We are leaving the EU.

I will believe that when I see it...

There is no earthly reason why we would therefore schackle ourselves
to expensive mediaeval technology when we will have control of our own
nuclear authority.

Then we can go buy it from the French (since we killed our indigenous
nuclear generation expertise with decades of dithering and pandering to
NIMBYs)

I'm also very dubious of the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel for
cars due to the problems TNP mention earlier, i.e. volume, leaks and
maybe explosion risk. .

Exactly. Far better to make synthetic diesel. With nukes.

Yup, don't want to miss out on all those lovely particulates and nitrous
oxides.


euro six engines don't emit much unless its VW anyway.
they could tighten the emissions more.

most of the particulates aren't from the engine these days.

On 16/08/2019 12:43, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 13:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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

It depends on how you produce it.

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.

At the moment a full tank of H2 is around £50 - £80, about what I pay
for petrol. I am sure I could spend far less on fuel if I bought an EV,
but that alone is not enough incentive to make my buy one.




The same sized tank as the diesel?
the energy density of hydrogen is much less than diesel so it would have
to be a much bigger tank to get the same energy.

Maybe pricing in energy/£ is a better measure.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And if anyone thinks that batteries will solve our problems, dream on.
They are nearly as good as they will ever get.

The Brexiteer using his crystal ball again...

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And if anyone thinks that batteries will solve our problems, dream on.
They are nearly as good as they will ever get.

The Brexiteer using his crystal ball again...

Knowing a bit of chemistry is not equivalent to using a crystal ball.
It would be nice if a new battery chemistry was just waiting to be
discovered but, short of divine intervention, there will not be any new
kinds of chemical element to make it with.

--

Roger Hayter

On 16/08/2019 19:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And if anyone thinks that batteries will solve our problems, dream on.
They are nearly as good as they will ever get.

The Brexiteer using his crystal ball again...

Knowing a bit of chemistry is not equivalent to using a crystal ball.
It would be nice if a new battery chemistry was just waiting to be
discovered but, short of divine intervention, there will not be any new
kinds of chemical element to make it with.

Wottaqthik****heis


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Friday, 16 August 2019 12:15:27 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 13:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Kind of meaningless in the context, and especially if you are going to
move away from burning primary fuels in cars.

A company makes billions from petroleum and you think they're gonna give up doing that?


Hydrogen is secondary energy, and its a bitch to handle

At one time so was petrol, and so is spent uranium. That does not mean
the problems are unsolvable.

they're solved. The solution however is not very good. There is very lttle prospect of a better solution.

=- weher are
they goiung to buy it from amyway?

I would expect them to make it.

from petroleum?

On Friday, 16 August 2019 12:18:51 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/08/2019 11:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 23:52, tabbypurr wrote:

they aren't experimental cars, they're promotional cars. Anyone that
understands the basics of H2 power realises they ain't happening.
Mfrs know that perfectly well.

You had better go tell Toyota, they seem to be betting the farm on it.


Who told you that?
Toyota?
Yeah, right....

When a business says they're going to implement a no-hoper 'solution' that's politically popular, there are 2 possibilities.
1. They're morons, they will, and the company will cease to exist.
2. They won't, and are amused by people that believe them.
Toyota is a very large company that's been around at least since the 30s. So explanation 1 lacks credibility in their case.


NT

On Friday, 16 August 2019 12:20:56 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 14:08, 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

The inefficiencies are not really relevant if ultimately you can deliver
a convenient and easy to live with solution to the end user.

H2 can't. It has zero hpoe of doing so. It's basic physics & business basics.


(be that
with H, flow batteries, a large pack of AAs or whatever)

The petroleum fuel cycle is also massively inefficient, but I am sure I
am not alone in caring not a jot when I go to fill up.

Efficiency has a big impact on price. H2's energy & economic inefficiencies will make you care many jots if you ever get a H2 powered car.


NT

On Friday, 16 August 2019 12:20:56 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/08/2019 14:08, 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

The inefficiencies are not really relevant if ultimately you can deliver
a convenient and easy to live with solution to the end user.

H2 never can

(be that
with H, flow batteries, a large pack of AAs or whatever)

The petroleum fuel cycle is also massively inefficient, but I am sure I
am not alone in caring not a jot when I go to fill up.

.... you've just no idea why it never can.