In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 24/01/2020 13:45:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:
You'll next be telling us what a success universal credit has been -
for those receiving it. And how NHS waiting times have come down.

Those are irrelevant to your stupid lie that the Tories have moved to
the right

I take it you think cutting benefits

That‘s a lie.

I do realise you are a right winger, but do you have to be like Trump and
say the truth is a lie?

Just the tiniest bit of research - other than in the Express - would soon
tell you about the effects of universal credit.

I don't think many can justify the 5 week automatic delay in receipt of
Tax Credits, nor the administrative delays in receiving housing costs,
unless they're a sadist.

You could actually answer the reference, "And are you seriously trying
to claim that Blair and Brown didn‘t do any move to the right ?" rather
than calling it a lie.

You might look at the bits I was replying to in order.

Most would consider Blair to be more right wing than thatcher,

Most as in you?

he
privatised assets Thatcher didn't want to.

Thatcher 'privatized' thing for her own political advantage.


I could go on with PPPs.

Think most conveniently forget his period in office was one of the most
prosperous in a lifetime for most. While allowing lots of investment in
public services, like the NHS.

--
*I did a theatrical performance about puns. It was a play on words.*

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 24/01/2020 13:45:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:
You'll next be telling us what a success universal credit has been -
for those receiving it. And how NHS waiting times have come down.

Those are irrelevant to your stupid lie that the Tories have moved to
the right

I take it you think cutting benefits

That¼s a lie.

I do realise you are a right winger, but do you have to be like Trump and
say the truth is a lie?

Just the tiniest bit of research - other than in the Express - would soon
tell you about the effects of universal credit.

I don't think many can justify the 5 week automatic delay in receipt of
Tax Credits, nor the administrative delays in receiving housing costs,
unless they're a sadist.

You could actually answer the reference, "And are you seriously trying
to claim that Blair and Brown didn¼t do any move to the right ?" rather
than calling it a lie.

You might look at the bits I was replying to in order.

Most would consider Blair to be more right wing than thatcher,

Most as in you?

he
privatised assets Thatcher didn't want to.

Thatcher 'privatized' thing for her own political advantage.


I could go on with PPPs.

Think most conveniently forget his period in office was one of the most
prosperous in a lifetime for most. While allowing lots of investment in
public services, like the NHS.

So what? The Labour Party is usually allowed to take power in boom
times, so they can be blamed when the poorer part of the economic cycle
occurs, and the Conservatives duly elected as it looks better for the
latter to impoverish the poor. But Blair did not only presise over
expansion, he also consolidated de-professionalisation and privatisation
in the health and other sectors. Our rulers prefer to use Labour to do
this, as it is harder to whip up opposition. The same applies to
anti-union laws which were bitterly opposed when Thatcher proposed them,
but regarded as "statesmanlike" when Blair continued the process.

--

Roger Hayter

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ray wrote:
You'll next be telling us what a success universal credit has been -
for those receiving it. And how NHS waiting times have come down.

Those are irrelevant to your stupid lie that the Tories have moved to
the right

I take it you think cutting benefits

That's a lie.

I do realise you are a right winger, but do you have to be like Trump and
say the truth is a lie?

It's a lie that benefits were cut by the Tories.

Just the tiniest bit of research - other than in the Express -
would soon tell you about the effects of universal credit.

That's not a cut in benefits, just a ****ed up approach to benefits.

And had nothing even remotely like the effect that a national
minimum wage, a big hike in that and a big hike in the level
at which you start to pay any income tax had on those at the
bottom of society anyway, so its just more of your very selective
lies on any purported move to the right.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 06:44:16 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile Australian asshole's latest troll****

06:44??? LOL So you've been up and trolling for about THREE HOURS, yet
again! LOL Why don't you just off yourself finally, you useless senile
troll? Take your Nembutal! What did you buy it for?

--
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:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 24/01/2020 13:45:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:
You'll next be telling us what a success universal credit has
been -
for those receiving it. And how NHS waiting times have come down.

Those are irrelevant to your stupid lie that the Tories have moved
to
the right

I take it you think cutting benefits

That¼s a lie.

I do realise you are a right winger, but do you have to be like Trump
and
say the truth is a lie?

Just the tiniest bit of research - other than in the Express - would
soon
tell you about the effects of universal credit.

I don't think many can justify the 5 week automatic delay in receipt of
Tax Credits, nor the administrative delays in receiving housing costs,
unless they're a sadist.

You could actually answer the reference, "And are you seriously trying
to claim that Blair and Brown didn¼t do any move to the right ?" rather
than calling it a lie.

You might look at the bits I was replying to in order.

Most would consider Blair to be more right wing than thatcher,

Most as in you?

he
privatised assets Thatcher didn't want to.

Thatcher 'privatized' thing for her own political advantage.


I could go on with PPPs.

Think most conveniently forget his period in office was one of the most
prosperous in a lifetime for most. While allowing lots of investment in
public services, like the NHS.

So what? The Labour Party is usually allowed to take power in boom
times, so they can be blamed when the poorer part of the economic cycle
occurs, and the Conservatives duly elected as it looks better for the
latter to impoverish the poor. But Blair did not only presise over
expansion, he also consolidated de-professionalisation and privatisation
in the health and other sectors. Our rulers prefer to use Labour to do
this, as it is harder to whip up opposition.

There are no rulers that organise stuff like that.

What actually happened with Blair is that he managed
to **** over Labour enough so that enough of the voters
decided that Labour wasn't a bad alternative and the
economy was doing well enough so that enough were
prepared to give Blair a chance in govt.

Then 2008 happened and they gave Brown the bums
rush at the ballot box and enough of the voters had
decided that enough was enough to do that and to
see if the other crew could do any better, and they did
and got a decent parliamentary majority in the next
election when they did, after the downsides of a coalition
became obvious with what the LDs forced the coalition to do.

The same applies to anti-union laws which were
bitterly opposed when Thatcher proposed them,

Because she was clearly into ****ing over the coal miners etc.

but regarded as "statesmanlike" when Blair continued the process.

Don't buy that last. Enough the voters were ****ed off
enough at the more stupid union behaviour like with
the engine drivers etc.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 08:38:31 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile troll's latest troll****

08:38??? STILL not bedtime for you, you subnormal senile cretin from Oz? LOL

--
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 ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Think most conveniently forget his period in office was one of the most
prosperous in a lifetime for most. While allowing lots of investment in
public services, like the NHS.

So what? The Labour Party is usually allowed to take power in boom
times,

That certainly explains the massive Tory majority at the last election.
Expect a pretty bumpy ride for the next decade or so post Brexit.

--
*Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is.

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

On 17/01/2020 10:59, Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:


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.




Oh agreed.

What do we do with electricity if no-one wants it at that moment?
Lightning displays? Build more interconnects ? -must be a
viability constraint(s}?

Wasn't there some blurb on here about the negative effects of
trying to "throttle back" nukes?


It is better to keep them running at full load (as long as that produces
some income) for two reasons. Firstly, it provides the best return on
investment, secondly it reduces thermal cycling. The fuel, core, boilers
and other structural elements have to be assessed for fatigue (as do the
turbines and other conventional plant, of course). I believe the French
plant are regularly load cycled.

But a guaranteed and reliable "energy storage" option, like hydrogen
generation, off peak heating or EV charging are really well suited to
nuclear generation. Of course aluminium smelting, as was done next door
to Wylfa in Anglesey, is also a form of energy storage.

On 25/01/2020 12:58, newshound wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:59, Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:


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.




Oh agreed.

What do we do with electricity if no-one wants it at that moment?
Â* Lightning displays? Build more interconnects ? -must be a
Â* viability constraint(s}?

Wasn't there some blurb on here about the negative effects of
Â* trying to "throttle back" nukes?


It is better to keep them running at full load (as long as that produces
some income) for two reasons. Firstly, it provides the best return on
investment, secondly it reduces thermal cycling. The fuel, core, boilers
and other structural elements have to be assessed for fatigue (as do the
turbines and other conventional plant, of course). I believe the French
plant are regularly load cycled.

It alters the nuclear reactions as well leading to xenon poisoning.

Wiki:
Some of the fission products generated during nuclear reactions have a
high neutron absorption capacity, such as xenon-135 (microscopic
cross-section σ = 2,000,000 b (barns); up to 3 million barns in reactor
conditions)[3] and samarium-149 (σ = 74,500 b). Because these two
fission product poisons remove neutrons from the reactor, they will
affect the thermal utilization factor and thus the reactivity. The
poisoning of a reactor core by these fission products may become so
serious that the chain reaction comes to a standstill.

Xenon-135 in particular tremendously affects the operation of a nuclear
reactor because it is the most powerful known neutron poison. The
inability of a reactor to be restarted due to the buildup of xenon-135
(reaches a maximum after about 10 hours) is sometimes referred to as
xenon precluded start-up. The period of time in which the reactor is
unable to override the effects of xenon-135 is called the xenon dead
time or poison outage. During periods of steady state operation, at a
constant neutron flux level, the xenon-135 concentration builds up to
its equilibrium value for that reactor power in about 40 to 50 hours.
When the reactor power is increased, xenon-135 concentration initially
decreases because the burn up is increased at the new, higher power
level. Thus, the dynamics of xenon poisoning are important for the
stability of the flux pattern and geometrical power distribution,
especially in physically large reactors.

Because 95% of the xenon-135 production is from iodine-135 decay, which
has a 6- to 7-hour half-life, the production of xenon-135 remains
constant; at this point, the xenon-135 concentration reaches a minimum.
The concentration then increases to the equilibrium for the new power
level in the same time, roughly 40 to 50 hours. The magnitude and the
rate of change of concentration during the initial 4 to 6 hour period
following the power change is dependent upon the initial power level and
on the amount of change in power level; the xenon-135 concentration
change is greater for a larger change in power level. When reactor power
is decreased, the process is reversed."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nut it is perfectly possible and a LOT cheaper than e.g hydrogen stiores
or anythiung to do with remeable energy

But a guaranteed and reliable "energy storage" option, like hydrogen
generation, off peak heating or EV charging are really well suited to
nuclear generation. Of course aluminium smelting, as was done next door
to Wylfa in Anglesey, is also a form of energy storage.

Hydrogen generation is NOT well suited to anything

I wpould say that synthetic diesel or syngas would be FAR more efficient
and less dangerous.

CCGTs are essentially jet engines modified to run on natural gas., They
could run instead on sythnetic avjet grade fuel.



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

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.

Maybe confusion with the fact that you can store quite a lot of energy
in LNG much more cheaply than Hydrogen. (I do mean LNG, not LPG).

In the distant days when terrorism concerns were rather less, anyone
could easily see a substantial LNG tank farm only a couple of miles from
the centre of a large UK city, and still surrounded by housing. Worse,
it was within range of an RPG from unsecured areas. My recollection is
that it stored something like a month of peak consumption for the city.

On 25/01/2020 20:34, newshound 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.

Maybe confusion with the fact that you can store quite a lot of energy
in LNG much more cheaply than Hydrogen. (I do mean LNG, not LPG).

In the distant days when terrorism concerns were rather less, anyone
could easily see a substantial LNG tank farm only a couple of miles from
the centre of a large UK city, and still surrounded by housing. Worse,
it was within range of an RPG from unsecured areas. My recollection is
that it stored something like a month of peak consumption for the city.

The (now decommissioned) storage near here was targetted by the IRA many
years ago. A friend of mine knew one of the police officers that gave
chase (had to give up the chase when the car was shot and lost power)
and got to listen to a recording of the running commentary he was giving
on the pursuit. It was, unsurprisingly, peppered with expletives for the
whole period after they started shooting.

SteveW

On 19/01/2020 15:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.

the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.

ISTR a former NASA hydrogen specialist wrote a book on that:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/ne...igs/101153648/

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

:-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 20/01/2020 19:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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

talk about straw men!

Who mentioned Nuclear? Yes its good stuff, but not what was being
discussed.

Your comment about "Note: a megaton explosion takes out about 100 sq km
absolutely." would suggest that you are aware of a *single* hydrogen
explosion of that scale, which caused that level of devastation. If so,
please point us toward a link.

Adding up all the lives lost to *multiple* gas explosions (most of which
were not hydrogen anyway) over an extended number of years is pretty
comical.


Because I'm not seeing any megaton hydrogen explosions.

Why would you?
Troll/

Can't win the argument? Quick, shoot the messenger.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 21/01/2020 19:04, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

They all are with air sourced heat pumps.

Ah - right. So no need to bury pipes in the ground. Wonder what the snag
is with that?


Low energy density so you presumably have to move a lot of air to extract
enough heat in cold weather (which must reduce efficiency).

Make you also wonder what it would be like living in a densely populated
area, where every house has a air sourced heat pump, each shifting and
*cooling* vast quantities of damp winter air. Could be a tad noisy, not
to mention you come out in the morning and find your electric car frozen
to the road :-))


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Monday, 27 January 2020 00:19:11 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/01/2020 19:04, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

They all are with air sourced heat pumps.

Ah - right. So no need to bury pipes in the ground. Wonder what the snag
is with that?


Low energy density so you presumably have to move a lot of air to extract
enough heat in cold weather (which must reduce efficiency).

Make you also wonder what it would be like living in a densely populated
area, where every house has a air sourced heat pump, each shifting and
*cooling* vast quantities of damp winter air. Could be a tad noisy, not
to mention you come out in the morning and find your electric car frozen
to the road :-))

The heat abstracted by a domestic heat pump is trivial.
Several houses near me have them, they are virtually silent.
Why would your car freeze to the road when both tarmac and rubber are good insulators?

On 26/01/2020 23:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/01/2020 15:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

The explosive hazard of hydrogen is often advanced as a reason for not
going down that route,

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.


petrol is way less dangerous than hydrogen or natural gas.

the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.

ISTR a former NASA hydrogen specialist wrote a book on that:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/ne...igs/101153648/

The hiundenburg disoater wasn't started by the hydrogen, but it sure
made a nice fire once it caught.

Being 100% hydrogen in the gas bags it burnt and didnt detonate.



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

I'd be worried by either.


I remember a guy disconnnecting a fast charger from a fork lift without
switching off the charger - the outgassed hydrogen/oxygen exploded when
a spark lit it. Battery was split in half.

I've seen lithiums go up in flames - they dont detonate but there is a
lot of energy in them

:-)




--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 27/01/2020 07:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 23:58:50 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 15:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
The explosive hazard of hydrogen is often advanced as a reason for not
going down that route,

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.

the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.

ISTR a former NASA hydrogen specialist wrote a book on that:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/ne...igs/101153648/


Quite.

I noted this short paragraph: "He ... even reconfigured a white 1992
Ford Crown Victoria to run on natural gas and hydrogen. He derives
hydrogen for the car from water in his garage."

So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen, both recharged in our garages.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 21/01/2020 19:04, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

They all are with air sourced heat pumps.

Ah - right. So no need to bury pipes in the ground. Wonder what the snag
is with that?

Low energy density so you presumably have to move a lot of air to
extract
enough heat in cold weather (which must reduce efficiency).

Make you also wonder what it would be like living in a densely
populated area, where every house has a air sourced heat pump, each
shifting and *cooling* vast quantities of damp winter air. Could be a
tad noisy, not to mention you come out in the morning and find your
electric car frozen to the road :-))

Last I heard the 4 dwellings being built in my old grain barn will be
air sourced heat. New build will clearly be well insulated. Plenty of
gas or electricity available so deliberate choice.



--
Tim Lamb

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 23:58:50 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 15:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
The explosive hazard of hydrogen is often advanced as a reason for not
going down that route,

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.

the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.

ISTR a former NASA hydrogen specialist wrote a book on that:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/ne...igs/101153648/


Quite.

I noted this short paragraph: "He ... even reconfigured a white 1992
Ford Crown Victoria to run on natural gas and hydrogen. He derives
hydrogen for the car from water in his garage."

America seems to have more than its fair share of folk claiming to run
their cars on water...

You have to wonder how he was generating his hydrogen and then storing it
to use in his car. Given what a terrible fuel hydrogen is in a
conventional engine, you have to also wonder why anyone would bother.


So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen,

No to €œICEs and hydrogen€�. https://youtu.be/l6ECwRnJ0Sg

Tim


--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.

But at least you can see that puddle.

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

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

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen, both recharged in our garages.

Do you really think it an efficient use of energy to convert water to
hydrogen then burn in an IC engine?

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

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

On 27/01/2020 10:05, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 21/01/2020 19:04, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Ray wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

They all are with air sourced heat pumps.

Ah - right. So no need to bury pipes in the ground. Wonder what the
snag
is with that?

Â*Low energy density so you presumably have to move a lot of air to
extract
enough heat in cold weather (which must reduce efficiency).

Make you also wonder what it would be like living in a densely
populated area, where every house has a air sourced heat pump, each
shifting and *cooling* vast quantities of damp winter air. Could be a
tad noisy, not to mention you come out in the morning and find your
electric car frozen to the road :-))

Last I heard the 4 dwellings being built in my old grain barn will be
air sourced heat. New build will clearly be well insulated. Plenty of
gas or electricity available so deliberate choice.

Indeed it's usually easy with a new build to meet the noise standards,
rind room for the cylinder, and fit radiators or UFH designed for low
(35 degree?) temp water. But challenging for - say - row after row of
modest Victorian terraced houses which never had a cylinder and have
nowhere obvious to put one, and have radiators sized for 60 or 70
degree. Plus of course the need to massively insulate the solid walls
and suspended floors, and upgrade windows. Even with the Renewable Heat
Incentive I couldn't make the numbers add up for us last year (without
DIY - but then I'm feeling a bit old for that scale of job.)

I'd like to know who is briefing the "citizens assembly" on the scale of
the task with our housing stock - including eg the risks the BRE
identified with the glib "insulate the walls" mantra.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:52:51 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to
handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you
"spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly
flammable
vapour.

But at least you can see that puddle.

Bruncefield.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/01/2020 07:33, harry wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2020 00:19:11 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/01/2020 19:04, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ray wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

They all are with air sourced heat pumps.

Ah - right. So no need to bury pipes in the ground. Wonder what the snag
is with that?


Low energy density so you presumably have to move a lot of air to extract
enough heat in cold weather (which must reduce efficiency).

Make you also wonder what it would be like living in a densely populated
area, where every house has a air sourced heat pump, each shifting and
*cooling* vast quantities of damp winter air. Could be a tad noisy, not
to mention you come out in the morning and find your electric car frozen
to the road :-))

The heat abstracted by a domestic heat pump is trivial.

I would expect it to be close to the heat used keeping the house warm...
so at least 30 kWh / day for much Victorian housing stock.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 27/01/2020 07:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 23:58:50 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 19/01/2020 15:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
The explosive hazard of hydrogen is often advanced as a reason for not
going down that route,

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.

the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.

ISTR a former NASA hydrogen specialist wrote a book on that:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/ne...igs/101153648/


Quite.

I noted this short paragraph: "He ... even reconfigured a white 1992
Ford Crown Victoria to run on natural gas and hydrogen. He derives
hydrogen for the car from water in his garage."

I think many of the current H refuelling stations run by ITM use local
electrolysis of water to generate their fuel stock locally. They appear
to have containerised their plant so you just feed it electricity and
water.

https://www.itm-power.com/products

So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen, both recharged in our garages.

You will get significantly better efficiency from the fuel cell option,
although as a way of keeping classic cars running it might be worth it.
(also there is the problem of whether you can burn the hydrogen cleanly
enough in a traditional ICE)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 27/01/2020 10:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle and
yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you "spill"
hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly flammable
vapour.

But at least you can see that puddle.

Normally you can't - as many numpty has found with petrol on bonfires etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hdnY2izjzk



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:55:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen, both recharged in our garages.

Do you really think it an efficient use of energy to convert water to
hydrogen then burn in an IC engine?

But we'll have this vast surplus of green energy, with all these
windmills and solar panels, won't we? The phrase 'too cheap to meter'
comes to mind. ;-)

Then use it to charge an electric car. ;-)

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

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

In article ,
Robin wrote:
Last I heard the 4 dwellings being built in my old grain barn will be
air sourced heat. New build will clearly be well insulated. Plenty of
gas or electricity available so deliberate choice.

Indeed it's usually easy with a new build to meet the noise standards,
rind room for the cylinder, and fit radiators or UFH designed for low
(35 degree?) temp water. But challenging for - say - row after row of
modest Victorian terraced houses which never had a cylinder and have
nowhere obvious to put one, and have radiators sized for 60 or 70
degree. Plus of course the need to massively insulate the solid walls
and suspended floors, and upgrade windows. Even with the Renewable Heat
Incentive I couldn't make the numbers add up for us last year (without
DIY - but then I'm feeling a bit old for that scale of job.)

Quite. If all the housing stock in the UK was upgraded to decent standards
of insulation, energy use would drop dramatically.

But it would seem many prefer to have lots of cheap energy to waste. ;-)

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

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

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
I remember a guy disconnnecting a fast charger from a fork lift without
switching off the charger - the outgassed hydrogen/oxygen exploded when
a spark lit it. Battery was split in half.

On of my Dads employees did that. There's still acid marks on the roof -
12ft high. Amazingly he managed not to get blinded.

Explosions were once pretty common on any vehicle battery charging
station, like in your local garage. Although usually not too serious. But
if talking about the amounts of hydrogen needed to fuel a car, they likely
would be.

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

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

On 27/01/2020 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
Last I heard the 4 dwellings being built in my old grain barn will be
air sourced heat. New build will clearly be well insulated. Plenty of
gas or electricity available so deliberate choice.

Indeed it's usually easy with a new build to meet the noise standards,
rind room for the cylinder, and fit radiators or UFH designed for low
(35 degree?) temp water. But challenging for - say - row after row of
modest Victorian terraced houses which never had a cylinder and have
nowhere obvious to put one, and have radiators sized for 60 or 70
degree. Plus of course the need to massively insulate the solid walls
and suspended floors, and upgrade windows. Even with the Renewable Heat
Incentive I couldn't make the numbers add up for us last year (without
DIY - but then I'm feeling a bit old for that scale of job.)

Quite. If all the housing stock in the UK was upgraded to decent standards
of insulation, energy use would drop dramatically.

But it would seem many prefer to have lots of cheap energy to waste. ;-)


I can't see much wrong with lots of /clean/ cheap energy - preferably so
cheap it's not worth metering. I for one would be very happy if we'd
had by now such electricity from fusion (ideally proton-proton!). But
in the absence of that I am also someone who prefers not to have
hand-waving calls for insulation and heat pumps to replace domestic gas
from people who refuse to answer questions about costs, risks and
consequences. Eg, what's your answer to the risks to Victorian housing
stock from the usual approaches to solid wall insulation?


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 27/01/2020 14:31, Robin wrote:

Plow**** vomited:

Quite. If all the housing stock in the UK was upgraded to decent
standards
of insulation, energy use would drop dramatically.


If it were Christmas every day, energy would dtrop dramaitically. Keepin
all those lefty****s in makework jobs adds at least 25GW to our energy bills

But it would seem many prefer to have lots of cheap energy to waste. ;-)


I can't see much wrong with lots of /clean/ cheap energy - preferably so
cheap it's not worth metering.Â* I for one would be very happy if we'd
had by now such electricity from fusion (ideally proton-proton!).Â* But
in the absence of that I am also someone who prefers not to have
hand-waving calls for insulation and heat pumps to replace domestic gas
from people who refuse to answer questions about costs, risks and
consequences.Â* Eg, what's your answer to the risks to Victorian housing
stock from the usual approaches to solid wall insulation?

A lot of chaps with tea-towels on their heads would be *very* upset if
electrivcity were too cheap to meter...

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

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:36:27 -0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:33:33 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:

I thought fuel cells were the way to go, crack water using solar, then let
the oxygen free, use the hydrogen for the cell

Most industrial-scale hydrogen production seems to be steam reforming of
natural gas, i.e. more or less methane, split the four hydrogens from
the carbon, of course the carbon gets oxidised, producing carbon
monoxide or dioxide ...

By that method, the production of 1 ton of hydrogen generates 9-12
tons of carbon dioxide, depending on the feedstock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrog...team_reforming

Don't tell me you actually believe on the CO2 ****? CO2 is fuel for plants! Better cheaper crops!

I appreciate perhaps your text to speech thingy might have puked, but normally a long link ain't a problem, a computer doesn't care how long the link is it's passing to the web browser. And it means we can see where we're going, and not a link to a dodgy site full of viruses.


On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:13:44 -0000, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:

Nice short link then.
I thought fuel cells were the way to go, crack water using solar, then let
the oxygen free, use the hydrogen for the cell and when it combines with the
oxygen you get water plus some excess heat and electricity.
Brian

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:35:24 -0000, 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.

Please do not encourage the treehuggers. We're already wasting money building windfarms. Notice how the cost of electricity has skyrocketed recently? It's to pay for this solar and wind ****.

On 27/01/2020 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/01/2020 23:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/01/2020 15:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
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 outÂ* about 100 sq km absolutely.

The explosive hazard of hydrogen is often advanced as a reason for not
going down that route,

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle
and yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you
"spill" hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly
flammable vapour.


petrol is way less dangerous than hydrogen or natural gas.

the Hindenburg disaster being often quoted.

ISTR a former NASA hydrogen specialist wrote a book on that:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/ne...igs/101153648/

The hiundenburg disoater wasn't started by the hydrogen, but it sure
made a nice fire once it caught.

Being 100% hydrogen in the gas bags it burnt and didnt detonate.



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

I'd be worried by either.


I remember a guy disconnnecting a fast charger from a fork lift without
switching off the charger - the outgassed hydrogen/oxygen exploded when
a spark lit it. Battery was split in half.

I recall a GEC trails engineer who wrote off the payload of a 4 ton Army
truck, by leaving batteries on charge overnight its load space (which
was basically a sealed container full of high end mil spec electronics).
It ended up looking somewhat "puffed" following unintended ignition!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 27/01/2020 13:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:55:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen, both recharged in our garages.

Do you really think it an efficient use of energy to convert water to
hydrogen then burn in an IC engine?

But we'll have this vast surplus of green energy, with all these
windmills and solar panels, won't we? The phrase 'too cheap to meter'
comes to mind. ;-)

Then use it to charge an electric car. ;-)

But then back to the good old range limit and recharging time.

SteveW

On 27/01/2020 17:08, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 13:53:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:55:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
So in the future our cars could either be powered by electric motors
and batteries or ICE's and hydrogen, both recharged in our garages.

Do you really think it an efficient use of energy to convert water to
hydrogen then burn in an IC engine?

But we'll have this vast surplus of green energy, with all these
windmills and solar panels, won't we? The phrase 'too cheap to meter'
comes to mind. ;-)

Then use it to charge an electric car. ;-)

simpler to change the carburetor on an existing vehicle. Our workshop
technician did that to his car during the petrol rationing of 1973,
and ran his car on propane. SU carb, IIRC; he just bored out the jet
and machined a fatter needle, although I doubt that modern carbs are
that simple to DIY modify, but modified carbs would be available
commercially.

cars dont have carbs anymore


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

In article l.net, Dave
Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:52:51 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle
and yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you
"spill" hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly
flammable vapour.

But at least you can see that puddle.

Bruncefield.

The overflow pepes were "designed" to vapourise the fuel.

Heard the bang here - 30+ miles away.

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

On 27/01/2020 18:42, charles wrote:
In article l.net, Dave
Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:52:51 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

People also seem to forget that petrol is dangerous stuff to handle
and yet we do that without a thought these days. At least if you
"spill" hydrogen it does not form ground dwelling puddle of highly
flammable vapour.

But at least you can see that puddle.

Bruncefield.

The overflow pepes were "designed" to vapourise the fuel.

Heard the bang here - 30+ miles away.

BUNCEFIELD.


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

Chris Hogg wrote:

Our workshop
technician did that to his car during the petrol rationing of 1973,
and ran his car on propane. SU carb, IIRC; he just bored out the jet
and machined a fatter needle, although I doubt that modern carbs are
that simple to DIY modify, but modified carbs would be available
commercially.

DIY'ed hydrogen storage in a car would be quite a worry