UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 11:09, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.


Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions?

we never built enough gas storage to power the whole country through a
winter

I can see uyou are not interested in facts, just in trolling
Bye


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.
  #162   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 01:01 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is out of Bed and TROLLING, already!!!! LOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:01:01 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

01:01??? And you are up and trolling ALREADY? Can't you even TRY to hide
what a miserable loser and asshole you are, senile Rodent?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/
  #163   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,938
Default Hydrogen engines

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/01/2020 11:18, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran
the entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate
dispatch requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of
the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down.
Or having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and
hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute
for pumped storage

Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand.


SSigh. Thats why you have dispatcahable nukes

Hydrogen offers the potential to
provide months of storage.

And I have pointed out the unbelieveable risks and costs assocaited
with that incredibly stupid iudea

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well
do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up.

We do actually. Just.

In the end its all cost benefit analysis driven. How much do you value
CO2 emission at? The higher the cost of then the more nukes and the
less gas power. *Renewables are never the cost effective option*, ever.


And political. The most likely sites are in Wales/Scotland. There was a
huge upset (early '60's) with the Clywedog *flood control* scheme when
the Welsh Nationalists claimed the stored water was going to be pumped
out of the R. Severn and over the hill to supply London.

A second similar scheme was dropped because the chosen valley was
inhabited.



--
Tim Lamb
  #164   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 01:12 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is out of Bed and TROLLING, already!!!! LOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:12:14 +1100, Rod Speedcantankerous trolling geezer
Rodent Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

01:12??? AGAIN? So it will be another LONG night of trolling for you again,
eh, senile Rodent? Serves you right for being such an obnoxious cantankerous
cretin! LOL

--
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:
  #165   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 01:05 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is out of Bed and TROLLING, already!!!! LOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:05:58 +1100, Rod Speedcantankerous trolling geezer
Rodent Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

01:05??? LOL Are you STILL up, or did you just get out of bed to start with
your nightly trolling, you lonely 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/


  #166   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 01:02 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is out of Bed and TROLLING, already!!!! LOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:02:27 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile troll**** unread

01:02??? LOL You must be the dumbest senile troll that ever infested these
groups, senile Rodent!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:
  #167   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,938
Default Hydrogen engines

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/01/2020 11:09, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.

Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions?

we never built enough gas storage to power the whole country through a
winter


Don't know the details but interconnector pipes are oversized and used
as off peak storage. I had the Luton/South Mimms feed run diagonally
through my arable (48" pipe) and the engineers were quite forthcoming.
Compensation was good but I got a dusty response when I asked for a
*storage* premium.

I can see uyou are not interested in facts, just in trolling
Bye



--
Tim Lamb
  #168   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 17:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 15:01, Pancho wrote:
Actually the CO2 emissions per capita between the UK(5.55) and
France(5.13) aren't that different. Surprisingly similar in fact. I
guess the UK benefited a lot from switching from coal to gas.


Complete lie. As far as the grid goes they emit 6 times less than us and
ten times less than germany.


I gave the links, they support the figures I quoted.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/uk-co2-emissions/

Why would you restrict it to "the grid"?
  #169   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 17:13, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran
the entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate
dispatch requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of
the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and
down. Or having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and
hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute
for pumped storage


Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to
provide months of storage.

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as
well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump
water up.

Neither do the french and their system works fine.



The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK.


That may well be true, but given
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

it doesnt appear that they have any more pumped
storage than the UK and use the different fuel rod
approach for handling the varying load on their
system instead of pumped storage.
But that doesnt actually list the MWh of their's.


They have significantly more hydro power.


Thats a separate issue to how best to handle the
varying load on nukes.


Pumped and hydro (dams) can serve the purpose, load balancing, rapid
dispatch. How the water gets to the top of the mountain doesn't really
matter.

The French also use fossil fuels for heating.


Another separate issue to varying load on the nukes.

It is most efficient to run Nukes flat out. France Nukes produce too
much in summer and too little in winter. Hence extra seasonal (winter)
generation power is balancing the Nukes.

Pumped Hydro, is short term balancing, minutes/hours. Coal and gas is
seasonal balancing.

  #170   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 17:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:21, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:02, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, 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 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.


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.

AND:

Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by
nuclear?
Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary
generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets
substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators
have to
supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to
recharge
that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free
period
in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that
might
need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think.
Â* That problem doesn't arise with nuclear.

A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two
months is a big battery.

I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of
whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when
speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather
with no generation from unreliables.

The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply
to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average
energy production to match average energy demand. Without a big
enough battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made
many times?


Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid
dispatch to counter the variability of demand.

But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out
AIUI), but it's not difficult.

Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to
match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty.

At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power
stations generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity
they generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the
hydrogen to fuel rapid dispatch generators.

No point. Cheaper to add a little more pumped storage
Or gas.


I'm pretty sure you have already pointed out we cannot have months of
energy stored in pump storage.


We donmt NEED to. we just need enough for daily peaks, with nuclear.
Only with renewable energy do we need a winters worth.



Yes we could use natural gas or burn coal, but the idea we are
discussing is to avoid CO2 emissions.


Then use nukes.

And pumped strorage. That is all you actually NEED.


It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.



  #171   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 17:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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 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.


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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.

Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions, then. Gosh, I am surprised.

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

Note that nearly all of these killed more people than chernobyl and
ALL of them killed more people than Fukushimas recator did.



"Note: a megaton explosion takes outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely."

The idea is to support what you actually claimed not start an
irrelevant tangent.

The point is that no one has been STUPID enough to build a seriously
large hydrogen store of the sort that you are proposing since gas at far
smaller levels has killed tens of thousands

Erm, where? Or do you mean Bhopal, which wasn't hydrogen and wasn't an
explosion.

Because I'm not seeing any megaton hydrogen explosions.

  #172   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:09, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.

Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions?

we never built enough gas storage to power the whole country through a
winter


No, but we could. We didn't need to as we have gas wells.

Germany already has enough for several months.

I can see uyou are not interested in facts, just in trolling
Bye

And the toys are out of the pram.



  #173   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Hydrogen engines



"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 17:13, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran
the entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate
dispatch requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the
turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down.
Or having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen
are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped
storage


Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to
provide months of storage.

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well
do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water
up.

Neither do the french and their system works fine.


The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK.


That may well be true, but given
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations
it doesnt appear that they have any more pumped
storage than the UK and use the different fuel rod
approach for handling the varying load on their
system instead of pumped storage.
But that doesnt actually list the MWh of their's.


They have significantly more hydro power.


Thats a separate issue to how best to handle the
varying load on nukes.


Pumped and hydro (dams) can serve the purpose, load balancing, rapid
dispatch.


But the french actually use the fuel rod approach
instead and that works very well for them and
doesnt have the downside of the flooded
valley no longer being available for other uses.

How the water gets to the top of the mountain doesn't really matter.


It does when the fuel rod approach has far
fewer downsides. And doesnt have the grossly
bad inefficiency and storage problem that the
hydrogen approach has.

The French also use fossil fuels for heating.


Another separate issue to varying load on the nukes.

It is most efficient to run Nukes flat out.


But efficiency isnt the only consideration.

France Nukes produce too much in summer and too little in winter.


But even easier to have some nukes offline
in summer and enough so you can generate
all you need in winter than to spend immense
amounts of money on hydrogen for that problem.

Hence extra seasonal (winter) generation power is balancing the Nukes.


But we were discussing whether hydrogen
makes sense for that. It doesnt. The fuel
rod approach makes a lot more sense.

Pumped Hydro, is short term balancing, minutes/
hours. Coal and gas is seasonal balancing.


Makes a lot more sense to have enough nukes
to supply all the winter demand and shut down
some of them for maintenance in summer and
not waste coal and gas on power generation and
have the real downside of the carbon produced.

  #174   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Hydrogen engines



"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 17:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:21, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:02, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, 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.

AND:

Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by
nuclear?
Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary
generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets
substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have
to
supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to
recharge
that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free
period
in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that
might
need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think.
That problem doesn't arise with nuclear.

A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two
months is a big battery.

I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of
whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when
speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the
weather
with no generation from unreliables.

The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply
to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average energy
production to match average energy demand. Without a big enough
battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made many times?


Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid
dispatch to counter the variability of demand.

But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out
AIUI), but it's not difficult.

Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to
match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty.

At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power stations
generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity they
generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the hydrogen to
fuel rapid dispatch generators.

No point. Cheaper to add a little more pumped storage
Or gas.


I'm pretty sure you have already pointed out we cannot have months of
energy stored in pump storage.


We donmt NEED to. we just need enough for daily peaks, with nuclear.
Only with renewable energy do we need a winters worth.



Yes we could use natural gas or burn coal, but the idea we are
discussing is to avoid CO2 emissions.


Then use nukes.

And pumped strorage. That is all you actually NEED.


It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.


Very unlikely given the problems with hydrogen storage.

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic heating,
to lower CO2 emissions.


No its not. Makes more sense to now ignore the stupid
EU requirements with new nukes, use those for winter
house heating and do the maintenance in summer and
shut down what surplus capacity is still there in summer.

  #175   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 03:46 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for EXACLTY THREE HOURS already!!!! LOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 03:46:55 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

03:46??? AGAIN? ROTFLOL And you've been up and trolling for THREE HOURS
already, you subnormal sociopathic swine!

--
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:


  #176   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 04:13 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for OVER THREE HOURS already!!!! LOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 04:13:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the senile asshole's troll**** again

04:13??? LOL And you've been up and trolling for OVER THREE HOURS already!

So it WILL be yet another LONG sleepless night for you again, you clinically
insane trolling asshole!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/
  #177   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 18:57, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 17:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 15:01, Pancho wrote:
Actually the CO2 emissions per capita between the UK(5.55) and
France(5.13) aren't that different. Surprisingly similar in fact. I
guess the UK benefited a lot from switching from coal to gas.


Complete lie. As far as the grid goes they emit 6 times less than us
and ten times less than germany.


I gave the links, they support the figures I quoted.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/uk-co2-emissions/

Why would you restrict it to "the grid"?


Because renewable energy is only used on the grid

Note that germany emits nearly twice as much overall

You are a typical troll. Cherry picking and changing the argument to
suit the 'facts'


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

  #178   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 18:58, Pancho wrote:
It is most efficient to run Nukes flat out.

No. it isn't. Efficiency is irrelavantwhne the fuel is almost no cost

France Nukes produce too
much in summer and too little in winter. Hence extra seasonal (winter)
generation power is balancing the Nukes.

Pumped Hydro, is short term balancing, minutes/hours. Coal and gas is
seasonal balancing.


Or build more nukes


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

  #179   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.



No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

  #180   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 19:05, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 17:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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 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.


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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.

Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions, then. Gosh, I am surprised.

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

Note that nearly all of these killed more people than chernobyl and
ALL of them killed more people than Fukushimas recator did.


"Note: a megaton explosion takes outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely."

The idea is to support what you actually claimed not start an
irrelevant tangent.

The point is that no one has been STUPID enough to build a seriously
large hydrogen store of the sort that you are proposing since gas at
far smaller levels has killed tens of thousands

Erm, where? Or do you mean Bhopal, which wasn't hydrogen and wasn't an
explosion.

Of FFS just tot up all the deaths from gas explosions overte last 50
years and compare with all the deaths from nucler

Because I'm not seeing any megaton hydrogen explosions.

Why would you?
Troll/



--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan



  #181   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 19:07, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:09, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.

Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions?

we never built enough gas storage to power the whole country through a
winter


No, but we could. We didn't need to as we have gas wells.

Germany already has enough for several months.

I can see uyou are not interested in facts, just in trolling
Bye

And the toys are out of the pram.



Troll




--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

  #182   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 06:23 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is STILL Trolling! ROTFLOL

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 06:23:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

06:23 So you've been trolling for almost SIX HOURS, ALL NIGHT LONG, yet
AGAIN!

Is it bright outside in Australia already, you subnormal piece of senile
****? LOL

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:
  #183   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default UNBELIEVABLE: It's 06:26 am in Australia and the Senile Cretin from Oz is STILL TROLLING! LMAO

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 06:26:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll****

06:26??? LMAO So it was another LONG night of ceaseless trolling for you
again, eh, senile Rodent? And it isn't even yet over for you! LOL

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:
  #184   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,237
Default Hydrogen engines

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.



No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.


Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.

--

Roger Hayter
  #185   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default Hydrogen engines



"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.



No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.


Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


Some of ours don’t even pretend to want to and get re-elected fine.



  #186   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,237
Default Hydrogen engines

Ray wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.


No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.


Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


Some of ours don't even pretend to want to and get re-elected fine.


Which part of the UK would that be?

--

Roger Hayter
  #187   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default Hydrogen engines



"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.


No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.

Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


Some of ours don't even pretend to want to and get re-elected fine.


Which part of the UK would that be?


Its bull**** with the safest UK seats too.

  #188   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 23:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.



No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.


Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


In nutshell, thats the point
They are all *pretending* to.
Its not real, It's a NARRATIVE. A fairy story. Its an EMOTIONAL
NARRATIVE aimed at all those Right (or is it Left?) brained people.

The one's who take rational decisions by employing emotions...

No one in that group wants to give up their lifestyles and become poorer
than a Kalahari Bushman, they just want to be seen to be on the 'right
side' and have an excuse to make the plebs pay more taxes and allow them
more control.

Simples.


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
  #189   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default Hydrogen engines

On Monday, 20 January 2020 11:09:45 UTC, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions.


Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with
devastating results

No megaton explosions?


The use of domestic gas is to be phased out. It will all go to power stations. Houses will have heat pumps.
  #190   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,237
Default Hydrogen engines

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 23:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.


No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.


Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


In nutshell, thats the point
They are all *pretending* to.
Its not real, It's a NARRATIVE. A fairy story. Its an EMOTIONAL
NARRATIVE aimed at all those Right (or is it Left?) brained people.

The one's who take rational decisions by employing emotions...

No one in that group wants to give up their lifestyles and become poorer
than a Kalahari Bushman, they just want to be seen to be on the 'right
side' and have an excuse to make the plebs pay more taxes and allow them
more control.

Simples.


For a mere pretence they seem to generate a remarkable number of
grotesque giant concrete turbines.

--

Roger Hayter


  #191   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:20:59 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.


Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


Some of ours don¢t even pretend to want to and get re-elected fine.


Somewhat like you can't even PRETEND that you are NOT an abnormal
sociopathic trolling and sleepless senile pest from Oz? Must be an Ozzie
thing.

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/
  #192   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,560
Default More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:00:35 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.

Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.

Some of ours don't even pretend to want to and get re-elected fine.


Which part of the UK would that be?


Its bull**** with the safest UK seats too.


UK seats, Ozzietard? Don't you have some fire to extinguish, you trolling
asshole from Oz?

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:
  #193   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 21/01/2020 07:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 23:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2020 19:02, Pancho wrote:
It might be cheaper to use excess Nuke capacity in summer to produce
hydrogen rather than build extra Nukes to cover winter demand.

A lot easier to use gas

This is especially true in the UK if we want to replace domestic
heating, to lower CO2 emissions.


No one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.

Fortunately or otherwise, that's wishful thinking. Any politician who
wants to be reelected is going to at least pretend to want to.


In nutshell, thats the point
They are all *pretending* to.
Its not real, It's a NARRATIVE. A fairy story. Its an EMOTIONAL
NARRATIVE aimed at all those Right (or is it Left?) brained people.

The one's who take rational decisions by employing emotions...

No one in that group wants to give up their lifestyles and become poorer
than a Kalahari Bushman, they just want to be seen to be on the 'right
side' and have an excuse to make the plebs pay more taxes and allow them
more control.

Simples.


For a mere pretence they seem to generate a remarkable number of
grotesque giant concrete turbines.

Indeed.

But those are to make profit, the appearance of virtue, and control.
Not carbon free electricity.



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

Karl Marx

  #194   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Hydrogen engines

On 20/01/2020 19:23, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 17:13, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal
ran the entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate
dispatch requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of
the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and
down. Or having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and
hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous)
substitute for pumped storage


Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential
to provide months of storage.

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as
well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump
water up.

Neither do the french and their system works fine.


The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK.

That may well be true, but given
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations
it doesnt appear that they have any more pumped
storage than the UK and use the different fuel rod
approach for handling the varying load on their
system instead of pumped storage.
Â* But that doesnt actually list the MWh of their's.

They have significantly more hydro power.

Thats a separate issue to how best to handle the
varying load on nukes.


Pumped and hydro (dams) can serve the purpose, load balancing, rapid
dispatch.


But the french actually use the fuel rod approach
instead and that works very well for them and
doesnt have the downside of the flooded
valley no longer being available for other uses.


Yes, I know, you can load balance Nukes. It works, but it is sub
optimal. AIUI it damages fuel rods.



How the water gets to the top of the mountain doesn't really matter.


It does when the fuel rod approach has far
fewer downsides. And doesnt have the grossly
bad inefficiency and storage problem that the
hydrogen approach has.


I don't understand this comment. When the cost of extra generation is
negligible efficiency doesn't count. If gas can be stored very cheaply,
the assumption is that it can, this becomes a good solution.

The French also use fossil fuels for heating.

Another separate issue to varying load on the nukes.

It is most efficient to run Nukes flat out.


But efficiency isnt the only consideration.


OK, what am I missing?

France Nukes produce too much in summer and too little in winter.


But even easier to have some nukes offline
in summer and enough so you can generate
all you need in winter than to spend immense
amounts of money on hydrogen for that problem.


OK. The problem is that nuclear power stations currently cost a
tremendous amount to build, they cost very little to run, they generate
a lot of revenue when they do run. In many ways this is very like wind
turbines, the following argument is the same for both nuclear and wind.

In order to be economic the cost of building has to be recovered from
the total profit of them working, over their fixed lifetime. If you turn
them off for summer, you don't make any profit for that proportion of
their lifetime.

Even if they only get a fraction of their normal price for electricity
in summer it can still be economic to run them, they still make a
profit. Hence hydrogen production at 40% efficiency is economic. It
still helps generate profit to offset the cost of building them.

With nuclear it may be confusing that you think the fuel rod approach is
better because it saves money, by saving fuel, but AIUI is doesn't even
save fuel. Even if it did the fuel is very cheap.

  #195   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,085
Default Hydrogen engines

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:37:49 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

The use of domestic gas is to be phased out. It will all go to power
stations. Houses will have heat pumps.


Wonder if that actually reduces the amount of fossil based CO2
released?

Each conversion has losses. What COP do the heat pumps *have* to
achieve to overcome the losses in the power station and grid compared
to say an 80% effcient domestic boiler?

--
Cheers
Dave.





  #196   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Hydrogen engines

On 21/01/2020 10:39, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:37:49 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

The use of domestic gas is to be phased out. It will all go to power
stations. Houses will have heat pumps.


Wonder if that actually reduces the amount of fossil based CO2
released?

Each conversion has losses. What COP do the heat pumps *have* to
achieve to overcome the losses in the power station and grid compared
to say an 80% effcient domestic boiler?

Not a lot really.

ccgt is around 50% gas to 13A socket.

even 2:1 on an air source will work better

AND they are all 'nuclear ready'


--
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.
  #197   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Hydrogen engines

In article ,
Ray wrote:
And you think the reduction in our income due to saying
we will leave and leaving the EU is a one off too?


It hasn’t been established that there will be any reduction
on the UK income, that’s just another Project Fear claim.,


You seem to be ignoring all the indications. And hoping they are wrong.
Rather typical Brexiteer, from the very start.

And that has nothing to do with govt money trees anyway.


Of course it has. If anyone spends more than they earn, it has to come
from somewhere.

--
*I have my own little world - but it's OK...they know me here*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #198   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Hydrogen engines

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I'm pretty sure you have already pointed out we cannot have months of
energy stored in pump storage.


We donmt NEED to. we just need enough for daily peaks, with nuclear.
Only with renewable energy do we need a winters worth.


You seriously think the wind never blows all winter? Which planet are you
on today?

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

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #199   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Hydrogen engines

In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
The use of domestic gas is to be phased out. It will all go to power
stations. Houses will have heat pumps.


Wonder if that actually reduces the amount of fossil based CO2
released?


Each conversion has losses. What COP do the heat pumps *have* to
achieve to overcome the losses in the power station and grid compared
to say an 80% effcient domestic boiler?


Have you considered how many UK homes are suitable for a heat pump system?

--
*IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #200   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Hydrogen engines



"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 19:23, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 17:13, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran
the entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate
dispatch requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of
the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and
down. Or having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and
hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute
for pumped storage


Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to
provide months of storage.

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as
well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump
water up.

Neither do the french and their system works fine.


The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK.

That may well be true, but given
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations
it doesnt appear that they have any more pumped
storage than the UK and use the different fuel rod
approach for handling the varying load on their
system instead of pumped storage.
But that doesnt actually list the MWh of their's.

They have significantly more hydro power.

Thats a separate issue to how best to handle the
varying load on nukes.


Pumped and hydro (dams) can serve the purpose, load balancing, rapid
dispatch.


But the french actually use the fuel rod approach
instead and that works very well for them and
doesnt have the downside of the flooded
valley no longer being available for other uses.


Yes, I know, you can load balance Nukes. It works, but it is sub optimal.


Doesnt matter given the fuel costs are so low.

AIUI it damages fuel rods.


Only the ones on the nukes that arent run
flat out and since the fuel rods are only a
minor part of the cost, thats no big deal.

That is much better than rendering more
valleys unusable for anything else.

How the water gets to the top of the mountain doesn't really matter.


It does when the fuel rod approach has far
fewer downsides. And doesnt have the grossly
bad inefficiency and storage problem that the
hydrogen approach has.


I don't understand this comment.


Yes, its clear that you dont.

When the cost of extra generation is negligible efficiency doesn't count.
If gas can be stored very cheaply, the assumption is that it can,


It isnt just the storage cost involved, its the
pathetic efficiency of the hydrogen approach
too. Makes a lot more sense to use the fuel rod
approach which doesnt involve any farting
around with hydrogen at all with all its downsides.

this becomes a good solution.


Like hell it does. Which is why they dont use it.

The French also use fossil fuels for heating.

Another separate issue to varying load on the nukes.

It is most efficient to run Nukes flat out.


But efficiency isnt the only consideration.


OK, what am I missing?


That when the fuel cost with nukes is a minor
cost, efficiency of the fuel rod use is irrelevant.

France Nukes produce too much in summer and too little in winter.


But even easier to have some nukes offline
in summer and enough so you can generate
all you need in winter than to spend immense
amounts of money on hydrogen for that problem.


OK. The problem is that nuclear power stations currently cost a tremendous
amount to build,


Only because of the stupid over regulation imposed
by the EU. That wasnt the case when france did their
nukes originally and they didnt have any major
problems with that earlier approach to nukes.

they cost very little to run,


Even when the fuel rods arent used most efficiently
when some of the nukes are not run flat out.

they generate a lot of revenue when they do run. In many ways this is very
like wind turbines,


Nothing like in the sense that how they are run
is completely up to those running them, not up
to the weather.

the following argument is the same for both nuclear and wind.


Bull**** it is.

In order to be economic the cost of building has to be recovered from the
total profit of them working, over their fixed lifetime. If you turn them
off for summer,


You only turn a minor subset off for summer and
that needs to be done for maintenance anyway,

you don't make any profit for that proportion of their lifetime.


But that clearly worked fine for the french system.

Even if they only get a fraction of their normal price for electricity in
summer it can still be economic to run them, they still make a profit.
Hence hydrogen production at 40% efficiency is economic.


No it is not compared with doing the maintenance then.

It still helps generate profit to offset the cost of building them.


That clearly wasnt necessary with the french system.

With nuclear it may be confusing that you think the fuel rod approach is
better because it saves money,


I never said that. I JUST said that given the cost of the
fuel is a minor part of the cost of nukes, it doesnt matter
if they arent run at full power all the time to get the
best out of them. Its much cheaper to replace them
when they arent used most efficiently than to fart around
with the immense cost of the hydrogen approach.

by saving fuel, but AIUI is doesn't even save fuel.


No one said it did.

Even if it did the fuel is very cheap.


So increasing the cost a bit by not running nukes
at full power all the time makes a lot more sense
than farting around with the very expensive hydrogen
approach to keep the cost of fuel rods lower.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Opposed piston Diesel engines / was interesting engines [email protected] Metalworking 57 February 10th 18 07:17 PM
Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions? Wes[_2_] Metalworking 5 January 12th 10 06:15 AM
Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions? Wes[_2_] Metalworking 0 January 10th 10 05:53 PM
Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions? Wes[_2_] Metalworking 1 January 10th 10 03:52 PM
Are 2-cycle engines or 4 cylce engines 'better'? dean Home Repair 21 June 14th 05 03:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"