https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI

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

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI

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 ...

Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Jimk Wrote in message:
Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?

Oops X3
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Jimk" wrote in message
o.uk...
Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?

We heard you the first time.

Jethro_uk wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

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

By that method, the production of 1 ton of hydrogen generates 9-12 tons
of carbon dioxide

Whatever happened to hydrolysis ?

Twice as expensive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

On 16/01/2020 18:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

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

By that method, the production of 1 ton of hydrogen generates 9-12 tons
of carbon dioxide

Whatever happened to hydrolysis ?

Twice as expensive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

Yes, if you don't count the externality.

I've been wondering for 20 years or more what is so difficult about a
real carbon tax. (Ok, there already is one on road fuel). It even seems
like something that you might be able to get international agreement on,
instead of all this pussyfooting around about targets.

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense. And you get a strong
incentive for electric commercial as well as private vehicles.

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.

newshound wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Twice as expensive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

Yes, if you don't count the externality.

For once the guardian doesn't miss the mark

"At the moment, hydrogen is most commonly produced from natural gas. In
this situation, a typical fuel cell car generates 70€“80g CO2 for each
kilometre driven €“ similar to a modern gasoline hybrid or to a battery
electric vehicle charged with today's UK grid electricity. These
emissions can be reduced towards zero if the hydrogen is produced using
low-carbon electricity sources such as renewables, nuclear or CCS to
electrolyse water. The downside is that in this situation only around
half as much electricity comes out of the fuel cell as was put in to
produce the hydrogen in the first place."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/11/hydrogen-economy-climate-change

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/01/2020 18:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

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

By that method, the production of 1 ton of hydrogen generates 9-12 tons
of carbon dioxide

Whatever happened to hydrolysis ?

Twice as expensive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

Yes, if you don't count the externality.

I've been wondering for 20 years or more what is so difficult about a real
carbon tax.

There is no point until it can be established that carbon matters.

(Ok, there already is one on road fuel). It even seems like something that
you might be able to get international agreement on,

No chance with the detail of how it is implemented.

We cant even do that on how company income tax.

instead of all this pussyfooting around about targets.

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

They make sense without doing that and it makes
no sense to cripple the economys that way.

And you get a strong incentive for electric commercial as well as private
vehicles.

Pity about the massive economic downsides
of those with commercial vehicles.

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:49:36 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal senile idiot's latest troll****

04:49!!! And you've been up and trolling since 04:15 ALREADY! Yet AGAIN!
LMAO

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:16:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more troll****

06:16??? So, you've been up and trolling for over two hours ALREADY!

IOW, you really are so miserable, you can't hide it! 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/

On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

On 16/01/20 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.


+1

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to techie

Jimk wrote:
Jimk Wrote in message:
Andy Burns Wrote in message:
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 ...


Hmm - does "Greta thunderbox" inc. know this?

Oops X3

X5

On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with Nuclear.

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

The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with Nuclear.

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.



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with Nuclear.

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?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 17/01/2020 10:59:30, Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with Nuclear.

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?

No blurb that I recall. I don't know the precise details but there is an
issue with reducing core output quickly and thermal energy has to be dumped.

If anything, you're probably thinking of the Chernobyl reactor design
flaw, also the effect of core poisoning from xenon generation.

I don't know if all designs have xenon poisoning, but it certainly makes
the core less stable at low outputs.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article , Jimk
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we
build more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with
Nuclear.

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.

and a few staff to make sure it's OK.

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

On 17/01/2020 11:09, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article , Jimk
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we
build more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with
Nuclear.

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.

and a few staff to make sure it's OK.

They come under maintenenance = O&M Operations and maintenance.



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

Karl Marx

On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious question,
not making a point.

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

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

Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So
if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two
technologies would be well suited.

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

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

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


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

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

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

On 17/01/2020 11:19:33, Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious question,
not making a point.

Accepted as genuine.

The issue is down to occasions where this is no wind and in the middle
of a cloudy day in Winter. I am aware hydrogen can be stored but it is
difficult to contain due to it's diffusive nature.

I haven't seen any articles that don't overcome the need of a reliable
source of power without some form of alternative power generation.

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

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

I haven't seen anything reliable. Either side is able to put forward
economics to disprove the other.

Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So
if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two
technologies would be well suited.

That may well be the first case where excess wind power is put to good
use. Currently they are paid to not generate.

In article ,
Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious question,
not making a point.

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

as long as the wind is blowing.

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

Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating.

I wonder what the Safety Elf would have to say about that ?

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

On 17/01/2020 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pancho
wrote:

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

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

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


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

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

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

Nominally, because of reduced nuclear waste.

Fast reactors eat transuranics, fusion reactor containers will become
slightly radioactive. So I can't see that as particularly significant.

Bomb proliferation risk I would give you.

On 17/01/2020 11:45, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pancho
wrote:

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

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

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


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

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

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

Nominally, because of reduced nuclear waste.

Fast reactors eat transuranics, fusion reactor containers will become
slightly radioactive. So I can't see that as particularly significant.

Bomb proliferation risk I would give you.

Actually I feel a business scheme coming on. What with being told we
need to ditch our gas boilers in favour of ground based heat pumps. We
could offer people radioactive waste to bury in their back garden to
improve the heat pump efficiency.

On 17/01/2020 11:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:19:33, Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we
build more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious
question, not making a point.

Accepted as genuine.

The issue is down to occasions where this is no wind and in the middle
of a cloudy day in Winter. I am aware hydrogen can be stored but it is
difficult to contain due to it's diffusive nature.



I'm not clear on that. I'm seeing reports that it could be stored using
existing methane storage facilities (not 100% sure of that, perhaps they
meant town gas storage). I'm seeing quotes that this gives something
like several months storage capacity in Germany. It says before
switching to natural gas Germany used town gas which is 60-65% hydrogen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Underground_hydrogen_storage

I haven't seen any articles that don't overcome the need of a reliable
source of power without some form of alternative power generation.


Over capacity of wind generators reduces the periods of under
generation, also the hydrogen stored during periods of over capacity
could be used for alternate power generation in periods of wind under
production.

So if they can do enough wind and cheap enough it does appear to be a
potential solution. Obviously a big *if*.

On 17/01/2020 11:34, charles wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious question,
not making a point.

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

as long as the wind is blowing.

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

Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating.

I wonder what the Safety Elf would have to say about that ?

I seem to recall 10% hydrogen mix is ok with present infrastructure. In
a few years new boilers will be required to be hydrogen ready, I think
adding about £70 to the price. It wouldn't be the first time the UK had
switched gas.

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:59:30 +0000, Jimk wrote:

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}?

Build massive air-con units and offset global warming!

--
TOJ

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating.

I wonder what the Safety Elf would have to say about that ?

I think some areas are trialling a natural-gas/hydrogen mix

Pancho wrote:

Over capacity of wind generators reduces the periods of under
generation, also the hydrogen stored during periods of over capacity
could be used for alternate power generation in periods of wind under
production.

depends if they produce the H2 centrally, then you have to distribute
it, or have "micro" production e.g. at petrol stations or fleet HQs

https://www.itm-power.com/h2-stations

I think they're building a factory in Sheffield to knock out the
hydroliser/compressors in shipping containers. Obviously you've then got
to beef up the electrical distribution instead of hydrogen tankers.