On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting


No mention of cost or efficiency



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 17:55, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 17:30, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:35:28 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense.

I think that would be too much of a shock to the system, put it on a
ramp to double or triple over several decades, maybe workable.

a kind of 'fuel price escalator'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

renewables never make sense

They do in a few situations like when its costs a hell
of a lot to get a power line to a particular place.

Way easier to take a tanker of diesl

Nope, because you have to keep doing that
and plenty of roads are impassable for months.

Way easier to have a solar system with batteries.

And its a bit tricky taking tankers of diesel to satellites.

Most of our irrigation gates are solar powered now because
thats a lot cheaper than getting mains power to it.

We have always done the more remote water supplies
for cattle that way. We call them windmills. They work fine.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting

No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 15:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:50:13 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:24:02 +0000, Pancho wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the
cost of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium. It
wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel
why do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why
fusion capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

The Thorium cycle keeps getting mentioned ...

and mentioned and mentioned, a bit like fusion.

AIUI, the main drawback is everything has been researched and built for
Uranium/Plutonium because bombs weren't far out of mind in the 30s and
40s.

There's also the fact that there are very heavily invested interests
against nuclear. With the entire economy of the developed world so
entwined with the discovery, recovery and distribution of fossil fuels,
it would be naive to think otherwise.

Imagine if the countries of the middle east were to suddenly be able to
stop pulling oil from the ground as they had no need of it anymore ?

Rather, imagine that the countries of the West, Asia and China were to
suddenly be able to do without oil and the countries of the middle East
had to stop pulling oil out of the ground because there were no customers
for it.

There will always be customers for it, if only for plastics etc.

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.
I see you don't even know elementary physics.

On Friday, 17 January 2020 16:28:51 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2020 15:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain to be convinced that the entire domestic solar PV market isn't/
wasn't just a bungs-for-the-boys scheme that was pushed through because
it was "green" ....

Oh I am way ahead of you. It was always precisely that. Or rather that
'green' is simply a way of selling ****e product to gullible millenials

Poor fools


It works well for me.
If there's a fool here it's you.

On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more
cost effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting


No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.
teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not


or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:19:08 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

Way easier to take a tanker of diesl

Nope

LOL


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

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:17:56 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


There will always be customers for it, if only for plastics etc.

Do you get some sort of tiny senile "climax" any time you find an occasion
to auto-contradict, you clinically insane auto-contradicting senile asshole?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:22:22 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

or efficiency

Don¢t need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

You'd better worry about the peanuts you got for brains, senile nutter!

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a Female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from from you boring
them to death."
MID:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting

No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not

Thats not a marginal cost, its a capital cost.

or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 20:50:42 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

That¢s not a marginal cost, it¢s a capital cost.

LOL In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane senile pest?


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

On 18/01/2020 09:50, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more
cost effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting


No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not

Thats not a marginal cost, its a capital cost.

the staff required and the maintenance is a capital cost?

Wow!


or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Neither could you
*plonk*


--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 09:50, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more
cost effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting

No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not

Thats not a marginal cost, its a capital cost.

the staff required and the maintenance is a capital cost?

No extra staff required to go that route instead of electrolysis.

or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Neither could you
*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 04:55:28 +1100, Ray wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 17:30, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:35:28 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense.

I think that would be too much of a shock to the system, put it on a
ramp to double or triple over several decades, maybe workable.

a kind of 'fuel price escalator'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

renewables never make sense

They do in a few situations like when its costs a hell of a lot to get a
power line to a particular place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator

Much more expensive than solar panel with the lower power systems.

On 17/01/2020 18:34:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2020 14:25:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

Just like surplus wind power, then?

But I'm sure a good right winger like you would soon find a way of
charging plenty for it. Capitalism can't survive without profit.

You're right.
A right winger will ensure the customer pays.

Not really, just make sure someone pays. Preferably not themselves.

A left winger will ensure everyone else pays, usually a tax payer.

I take it then you hate any form of insurance? Where the load is spread
more evenly?

That is a form of insurance for other's benefit. Why would anyone
renting have to club together for buildings insurance that someone else
would benefit from?

Socialism can't exist without money trees.
That must make Boris a socialist.

More a mixed economy type of guy.

North Korea perhaps being an
obvious state discovering there is no free money tree.

You'd compare N Korea to the UK?

No, with failed socialism.

Is it really so difficult to accept there are advantages to a mixed
economic?

I've always accepted and believed in one. Best of both worlds. But lots on
here despise it. Everything only exists to make a profit from.

I agree, but I accept greed associated with capitalism has its place. I
don't feel the need to deride capitalism where the far right is
synonymous with the far left.

On 18/01/2020 18:00:59, % wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 09:50, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more
cost effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting


No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not

Thats not a marginal cost, its a capital cost.

the staff required and the maintenance is a capital cost?

No extra staff required to go that route instead of electrolysis.

or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Neither could you
*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

Sounds like another lost argument.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 18:00:59, % wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 09:50, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2020 02:22, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 18:51, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, 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

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more
cost effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting

No mention of cost

You've already correctly pointed out that once you
have the nuke, the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

teh margoinal copst of te plant to produce the hydrogen, is not

Thats not a marginal cost, its a capital cost.

the staff required and the maintenance is a capital cost?

No extra staff required to go that route instead of electrolysis.

or efficiency

Dont need that when the marginal cost of fuel is peanuts.

The Diane Abbot view of economics

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Neither could you
*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

Sounds like another lost argument.

Then you need a hearing aid, bad.

That fool is doing the usual, when its nose has been
rubbed in a number of its terminal stupidities like the
stupid claim that renewables never work anywhere,
when they have been doing that for centuries now
with windmills alone, reaches for the kill file, again.

In spades with its other terminal stupidities with the
australian bushfires.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 05:07:01 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator

Much more expensive than solar panel with the lower power systems.

HOW much "more expensive", senile Mr Know-it-all? And provide source, you
endlessly drivelling senile twit!

--
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 Sun, 19 Jan 2020 05:00:59 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Neither could you
*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

YOU are certainly a pathetic excuse for a troll, senile asshole!

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 05:44:38 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Sounds like another lost argument.

Then you need a hearing aid, bad.

What you need is a good dose of your Nembutal, you abnormal 85-year-old
trolling senile pest!

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I take it then you hate any form of insurance? Where the load is spread
more evenly?

That is a form of insurance for other's benefit. Why would anyone
renting have to club together for buildings insurance that someone else
would benefit from?

Not quite sure I see what you're saying. Someone has to pay for building
insurance on a rented property, and at the end of the day, that will be
the renter. Same as all other costs of that building.

Socialism can't exist without money trees.
That must make Boris a socialist.

More a mixed economy type of guy.

But has found that magic money tree may said didn't exist?

North Korea perhaps being an
obvious state discovering there is no free money tree.

You'd compare N Korea to the UK?

No, with failed socialism.

Is it really so difficult to accept there are advantages to a mixed
economic?

I've always accepted and believed in one. Best of both worlds. But lots on
here despise it. Everything only exists to make a profit from.

I agree, but I accept greed associated with capitalism has its place. I
don't feel the need to deride capitalism where the far right is
synonymous with the far left.

You seem to have the Trump view. Anything socialist in principle, bad.
Anything capitalist, good.

But there are very few countries in the world that don't have a mixture of
both. And certainly none one would want to actually live in.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

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

On 17/01/2020 13:41, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:19:33 +0000, Pancho
wrote:

On 16/01/2020 20:18, 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 you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious question,
not making a point.

I vaguely remember someone claiming that the required number of
windmills would take up too much area in the UK, but I think I have also
seen claims we could produce ten times our requirements from wind.

Does anyone have a reliable source for a discussion of potential UK wind
capacity, + economics.

David MacKay has discussed this objectively here
http://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_32.shtml and on the following
pages for on-shore wind, and here and on the following pages for
off-shore wind http://www.withouthotair.com/c10/page_60.shtml He goes
into more technical detail here
http://www.withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml but I don't think he
goes into costs, but I may have forgotten that bit.

Thank you, David MacKay was one of the people I was thinking of. I see
the book is free. I should read it.

I very much like MacKay's style, but it is the way I tend to think
myself and so I would really like to see criticism of it.

Preferably I would like to see government plans for zero carbon. Plans
from somewhere like Germany. The fact Germany has decided to turn off
its Nuclear power stations would suggest they have confidence they have
a renewable solution or, alternatively, that they are not going for a
zero carbon solution.

On 17/01/2020 14:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:19, Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, 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 you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious
question, not making a point.

Ar you being deliberate;ly stupid?

I don't have to be deliberate, after a lifetime's practice it comes
naturally.

It's *impractical* to have a car with square wheels But you can
certainly make one.


I vaguely remember someone claiming that the required number of
windmills would take up too much area in the UK, but I think I have
also seen claims we could produce ten times our requirements from wind.


eco****s are always claing te impossible

Does anyone have a reliable source for a discussion of potential UK
wind capacity, + economics.

David Mackays 'without the hot air'

and
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


This was interesting, but it comes across as evangelical, promotional,
rather that a more balanced scientific report. I'm not saying the
science is wrong, just that the style makes me suspect it.

It was interesting and educational, though.

I was hoping for something promoting the eco**** side, as you would say.

A point you made to me a while back has played on my mind. The point
being about a mix for a zero carbon national system. i.e. nuclear and
hydro, or nuclear and some balancing generator that can turn on and off
quickly, rapid dispatch, I think was the term.

AIUI Your point being that wind and solar contributions where virtually
useless if the goal was zero emissions. They could reduce gas emissions
in a system with a high component of gas generation but that once it was
decided to have a large nuclear component there was no point in them. In
effect they were a dead end. That sounded quite convincing to me.

I had considered massive overcapacity for wind and solar, backuped up by
hydrogen generation and storage, but MacKay's point about land area
required (generation density) convinces me that this isn't really
practical, in the UK.

My conclusion being that we really should make up our minds which way we
want to go. I tend to think it should be nuclear.

So rather than reinforce my own bias of how something can't be achieved
I was hoping that an eco advocate would give me a worked example of how
a non nuclear solution could be done.

On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

On 19/01/2020 12:22, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

On 19/01/2020 11:55, Pancho wrote:
Preferably I would like to see government plans for zero carbon. Plans
from somewhere like Germany. The fact Germany has decided to turn off
its Nuclear power stations would suggest they have confidence they have
a renewable solution or, alternatively, that they are not going for a
zero carbon solution.

How naive can you get?

Germany's renewable energy plans are falling apart. They are STILL
running more nuclear power than Britain and yet they are the largest
emitter of CO2 by country, and per capita, in the EU.

And their electricity is the most expensive.

You appear to be suffering from the delusions that politicians actually
both know what they are doing and also that they are acting in the
interest of their national populations.

Bless!




--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,
when early-evening demand is high, days are short, sun is low (when
there is any), and we get high pressure sitting over Europe, meaning
little or no wind for a few days. And we won't be able to make it up
via the interconnects to the Continent. For a start, there's only a
limited capacity in those interconnects (4GW from the near Continent,
plus another 1.5GW when the Norway interconnect comes on stream; at
peak times on a winter's evening we use around 45GW), and second, they
won't have any juice to spare.

It will be interesting to see how much renewable energy is generated
over the next few days, when the Met Office forecast is for just such
a situation, AIUI.


We will fire up our coal and gas stations and export to France.

As per usual


--
€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 19/01/2020 13:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 11:55, Pancho wrote:
Preferably I would like to see government plans for zero carbon. Plans
from somewhere like Germany. The fact Germany has decided to turn off
its Nuclear power stations would suggest they have confidence they
have a renewable solution or, alternatively, that they are not going
for a zero carbon solution.

How naive can you get?

Germany's renewable energy plans are falling apart. They are STILL
running more nuclear power than Britain and yet they are the largest
emitter of CO2 by country, and per capita, in the EU.

And their electricity is the most expensive.

You appear to be suffering from the delusions that politicians actually
both know what they are doing and also that they are acting in the
interest of their national populations.

Bless!

Just asking, don't expect to get!

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* 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 providing 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.

Chris Hogg wrote:

I can see phrases such as net-zero being bandied
around, with claims that planting squillions of trees offsets all the
natural gas and petrol/diesel being used.

Until someone suggests chopping them down and burning them as biomass,
will be greener than importing biomass from the other side of the planet.

On 19/01/2020 13:15, Chris Hogg wrote:


There will be fudges by any government when it comes to claiming
they're carbon-free. I can see phrases such as net-zero being bandied
around, with claims that planting squillions of trees offsets all the
natural gas and petrol/diesel being used.

As for Germany, they went into panic mode after Fukushima, but things
are turning out badly for their Energiewende policy.
http://tinyurl.com/y7xdc3ox , http://tinyurl.com/y94mkbal


I understand that the current strategy is problematic. However the
German government should have a long term strategy. A budget, a
forecast, some scientifically plausible plan for the long term future.

If they don't, this needs to be exposed more.

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.

On 19/01/2020 13:23, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 13:15, Chris Hogg wrote:


There will be fudges by any government when it comes to claiming
they're carbon-free. I can see phrases such as net-zero being bandied
around, with claims that planting squillions of trees offsets all the
natural gas and petrol/diesel being used.

As for Germany, they went into panic mode after Fukushima, but things
are turning out badly for their Energiewende policy.
http://tinyurl.com/y7xdc3ox , http://tinyurl.com/y94mkbal


I understand that the current strategy is problematic. However the
German government should have a long term strategy. A budget, a
forecast, some scientifically plausible plan for the long term future.

If they don't, thisÂ* needs to be exposed more.

They dont but Who wants to listen.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

In article ,
Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

It could, but how do you get it to the house?

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

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

On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote:

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 providing 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.


But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen?
The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase
'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That
looks like a classic example of just that.

To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about
24 hours at an average of 35Gw

= 840GWh

In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas.


Would you rather live:

(a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down
inside a safe containment vessel?
(b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store?

Note: a megaton explosion takes out about 100 sq km absolutely.


--
"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?"

Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

I can see phrases such as net-zero being bandied
around, with claims that planting squillions of trees offsets all the
natural gas and petrol/diesel being used.

Until someone suggests chopping them down and burning them as biomass,
will be greener than importing biomass from the other side of the planet.

https://physicsworld.com/a/biomass-e...reen-or-dirty/

#Paul

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I take it then you hate any form of insurance? Where the load is spread
more evenly?

That is a form of insurance for other's benefit. Why would anyone
renting have to club together for buildings insurance that someone else
would benefit from?

Not quite sure I see what you're saying. Someone has to pay for building
insurance on a rented property, and at the end of the day, that will be
the renter. Same as all other costs of that building.

Socialism can't exist without money trees.
That must make Boris a socialist.

More a mixed economy type of guy.

But has found that magic money tree may said didn't exist?

Don’t need a magic money tree, just stop sending
billions a year to the EU.

North Korea perhaps being an
obvious state discovering there is no free money tree.

You'd compare N Korea to the UK?

No, with failed socialism.

Is it really so difficult to accept there are advantages to a mixed
economic?

I've always accepted and believed in one. Best of both worlds. But lots
on
here despise it. Everything only exists to make a profit from.

I agree, but I accept greed associated with capitalism has its place. I
don't feel the need to deride capitalism where the far right is
synonymous with the far left.

You seem to have the Trump view. Anything socialist in principle, bad.
Anything capitalist, good.

That’s not Trump's view. He is happy to have the US military
build his stupid wall. Classic socialism.

But there are very few countries in the world that don't have a mixture of
both.

None in fact.

And certainly none one would want to actually live in.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:50:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote:

To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about
24 hours at an average of 35Gw

= 840GWh

In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas.


Would you rather live:

(a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down
inside a safe containment vessel?
(b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store?

Note: a megaton explosion takes out about 100 sq km absolutely.

The explosive hazard of hydrogen is often advanced as a reason for not
going down that route, the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.
Personally, I think the danger of such an explosion is grossly
exaggerated - all forms of flammable gas are explosive when mixed with
air in the appropriate proportions. OK, so the range of explosive
mixtures of hydrogen with air (18 - 60%, or so I read) is greater than
for most other flammable gasses, but hydrogen is lighter than air and
rises quite fast when released. The burning hydrogen from the
Hindenburg went upwards and there was no actual explosion as such. You
might get a massive and very hot fire from a hydrogen storage
facility, but I doubt there would be an explosion. But I'm no expert;
how many of the old 'gasometers' actually exploded?

I'd be much more worried by a massive Li-based battery nearby, than a
hydrogen storage facility.

Those don't explode either, just burn and are hard to put out.

wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

I can see phrases such as net-zero being bandied
around, with claims that planting squillions of trees offsets all the
natural gas and petrol/diesel being used.

Until someone suggests chopping them down and burning them as biomass,
will be greener than importing biomass from the other side of the planet.

https://physicsworld.com/a/biomass-e...reen-or-dirty/

Btw as regards the remark of Andy Burns, the article contains this sentence:

"You might think that the greenhouse-gas emissions associated
with transporting the pellets over such a vast distance must
be huge, but I'm told they make up a surprisingly small proportion
of the supply chain emissions. As long as wood fuels are
transported by ship, the distance doesn't matter too much,
says Scott Bentsen."

#Paul