Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Greg Locock]

Hydrogen is fascinating. It seems to have sucked in vast amounts of money. Of course, if solar to hydrogen really works then BEVs will vanish, oddly ICs won't. I'll leave you to find out why.

[Andres125sx]

Hydrogen is fascinating. It seems to have sucked in vast amounts of money. Of course, if solar to hydrogen really works then BEVs will vanish, oddly ICs won't. I'll leave you to find out why.

Sorry Greg but you´re asking for the reason you assume ICs won´t dissapear. How should be know that? You´re not talking about a fact, but about your own assumption wich is odd if you ask me


Main problem with hydrogen is cost/efficiency/sustainability for its production, and how to store it into high pressure tanks. Second problem may be solved tough



I had never seen hydrogen as a viable alternative, but probably I was wrong and this is the real alternative. Also hydrogen makes possible to be used in turbines too, wich is something electric motors and batteries can´t

[christianagdmn]

Current biggest hydrogen plant produces 9 tonnes a day. Now...

New California hyddrogen plant will produce 11 tonnes per day
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilvers ... 5ec1402a96https://www.worktime.com/employee-monitoring


And new Saudi Arabia hydrogen plant will produce 650 tonnes a day
https://www.chemengonline.com/the-world ... rintmode=1


Or that´s the claim, we´ll see what becomes real and what´s just BS

and where exactly does it say 650 tons?
Do they mean to say that now the maximum volume is 9 tons per day, and they're going to produce 650 tons per day in Saudi Arabia? That's 72 times as much? What could be the reason for this huge difference and what kind of equipment is needed?
it sounds very far-fetched, but if so it is just breathtaking!

[Andres125sx]

and where exactly does it say 650 tons?

In the headline, and into the article

Do they mean to say that now the maximum volume is 9 tons per day, and they're going to produce 650 tons per day in Saudi Arabia? That's 72 times as much? What could be the reason for this huge difference and what kind of equipment is needed?
it sounds very far-fetched, but if so it is just breathtaking!

Exactly, 9 tons per day is the production of biggest H2 plant today, and they claim they will produce 650

The reason is they think H2 will be the fuel of the future for transportation, not only for cars, but trucks and even planes as H2 can power both electric motors and turbines wich is something electric motors and batteries will never do

Sounds far-fetched, indeed, but we know Saudi´s projects can be quite faraonic, so we´ll see if they can prove it real or not

[J.A.W.]

The reason is they think H2 will be the fuel of the future for transportation, not only for cars, but trucks and even planes as H2 can power both electric motors and turbines wich is something electric motors and batteries will never do...

Hey hang on, aren't the turbines of ah, current, F1 engines in fact - 'motored' electrically, that is,
they are 'spooled up' to speed, as required - by battery-based energy, stat prior to ICE gas-generation?

[Andres125sx]

The reason is they think H2 will be the fuel of the future for transportation, not only for cars, but trucks and even planes as H2 can power both electric motors and turbines wich is something electric motors and batteries will never do...

Hey hang on, aren't the turbines of ah, current, F1 engines in fact - 'motored' electrically, that is,
they are 'spooled up' to speed, as required - by battery-based energy, stat prior to ICE gas-generation?

That´s a turbo, not a turbine, they work completely different

A turbo is like an Electric Ducted Fan in radiocontrolled models, a way to simulate a turbine with electric power, or the previous step to turbines from an historical point of view in real aircrafts, a way to increase propeller planes perfomance when they were reaching the ceiling of props (supersonic speeds at the blade tip) but far from the perfomance of a real turbine.

EDFs will never be able to power an airliner, or at least they will never be able to get close to their perfomance

[J.A.W.]

In a turbo-charger, the hot-gas section is generally referred to as the turbine,
& the cool-gas section is the compressor, (which in current jet aero-engine use - usually
combines a fan section too, to provide motive thrust - over & above feeding the turbine).

In F1 usage, a complex of electro-mechanical drives maintains the most efficient
pressure/rpm ratios to ensure smooth operation vis a vis the ICE gas-generation
utilization & power output/fuel consumption range for optimal race performance.

Power plants have long used both hot-fluid (steam) & cold-fluid (gravity hydro) 'turbines'
to drive electric generators, but only fairly recently - have added efficiencies in operational
functions of gas turbines (of the familiar aircraft-usage type) for 'peak load' power-grid
support made them economically viable - esp' with the move to eco-fuel as 'part 'n' parcel'.

[Andres125sx]

I was talking about gas turbines, specially for airliners, as they´re currently the fossil fuel engines wich are further from having a sustainable replacement, and hydrogen may be a doable alternative

[francisbaud]

As long as the oil is going to be abundant and cheap to extract and produce, which should be the case for dozens of years to come I guess, I believe that turning to electrical vehicles will be an artificially pushed solution that doesn't solve the pollution issue (batteries are extremely pollutant afaik). It's unfortunate that our western governments put so much energy in trying to quit using gas and oil to reduce emissions and attenuate warming, while encouraging technologies that are costly to recycle, possibly more costly than just using new material, which means companies do not have financial incentives to recycle batteries.

[Greg Locock]

Clue for Andres: Ammonia.

[Andres125sx]

As long as the oil is going to be abundant and cheap to extract and produce, which should be the case for dozens of years to come I guess, I believe that turning to electrical vehicles will be an artificially pushed solution that doesn't solve the pollution issue (batteries are extremely pollutant afaik). It's unfortunate that our western governments put so much energy in trying to quit using gas and oil to reduce emissions and attenuate warming, while encouraging technologies that are costly to recycle, possibly more costly than just using new material, which means companies do not have financial incentives to recycle batteries.

I´ve had to check the date to be sure this post is not from the 90´s. Quite outdated opinion if you ask me

It´s amazing people keep confusing CO2 with pollution. Even if an EV produce similar CO2 than an ICE (even if, but that´s not the case), ICE produce a lot more harmful substances than just CO2, actually what is harmfull for us humans are all those substances wich produce ICEs but an EV does not produce in their whole lifespan, even considering manufacturing and recycling, like cinder, CO, and several cancerigen substances wich are the responsible for thounsands of respiratory problems in people living into cities. ICEs produce a lot of those substances and car´s exhaust send them just into our faces and noses, while EVs do not produce any of those, not in their manufacturing, not in their use, and not in their recycling either

[Andres125sx]

Clue for Andres: Ammonia.

clue for Greg: I can´t read your mind mate

[Tommy Cookers]

2 recent events .....

UK commits on acceleration to 78% CO2 reduction by 2035
(needs decarbonisation of heating, order of magnitude increase in 24/7 'renewable' electricity and other impossibilities)

London Asst Coroner declares 2013 asthma death of 9 year old Ella Aloo-Kissi-Debrah in part due to air pollution ...
and calls for reduction of mean PM2.5 limit from UK/EU 25 microgram/cubic metre to WHO recommended 10 microgram

but ......
75% of PM2.5 in London public air is (since 2013) emitted by subsidised 'green' wood-burning heating via the RHI
(Renewable Heat Incentive that exists to help save the world from global warming)
this truth is too inconvenient for any of the legion of lying alarmist 'news' articles to mention

[Andres125sx]

2 recent events .....

UK commits on acceleration to 78% CO2 reduction by 2035
(needs decarbonisation of heating, order of magnitude increase in 24/7 'renewable' electricity and other impossibilities)

London Asst Coroner declares 2013 asthma death of 9 year old Ella Aloo-Kissi-Debrah in part due to air pollution ...
and calls for reduction of mean PM2.5 limit from UK/EU 25 microgram/cubic metre to WHO recommended 10 microgram

but ......
75% of PM2.5 in London public air is (since 2013) emitted by subsidised 'green' wood-burning heating via the RHI
(Renewable Heat Incentive that exists to help save the world from global warming)
this truth is too inconvenient for any of the legion of lying alarmist 'news' articles to mention

Yeah it´s a shame UK government subsidize things they shouldn´t. That happens all around the world I´m afraid, politics who decide what to subsidize are ignorants who don´t know anything about environement (wich is normal) but the worst part is they don´t even know what advisors to hire to be correctly advised. When you know how many advisors those politics pay with our money, and see not even with those embarrasing numbers they can take sensible decisions, you wonder how is possible such an ignorant reached that high position...

But we citizens voted them to govern us all, who´s the biggest ignorant here?

[henry]

2 recent events .....

UK commits on acceleration to 78% CO2 reduction by 2035
(needs decarbonisation of heating, order of magnitude increase in 24/7 'renewable' electricity and other impossibilities)

London Asst Coroner declares 2013 asthma death of 9 year old Ella Aloo-Kissi-Debrah in part due to air pollution ...
and calls for reduction of mean PM2.5 limit from UK/EU 25 microgram/cubic metre to WHO recommended 10 microgram

but ......
75% of PM2.5 in London public air is (since 2013) emitted by subsidised 'green' wood-burning heating via the RHI
(Renewable Heat Incentive that exists to help save the world from global warming)
this truth is too inconvenient for any of the legion of lying alarmist 'news' articles to mention

The U.K. government has just taken a baby step to try to improve the wood burning problem. They have banned the sale of “wet” wood and coal for domestic consumption. It is still possible to buy these in bulk and the wood has to carry instructions on how to dry it for use in a space heater. Not a very significant development but it does show that they realise there is an issue. How they take the bigger steps without losing votes is a significant challenge.

I don’t think taking overall averages of pollutants really does the job when it comes to public health. I think that more detailed examination is needed. Whilst vehicle emissions are lower than wood fire emissions they tend to be more concentrated, on arterial roads, and low down, so likely to be ingested by those who spend time near those thoroughfares. The wood fires are more spread out and their exhausts much higher so that exposure rates are likely to be lower, but affect a wider area.

This a different issue from emissions affecting climate change are considered. For those amounts rather than concentrations matter.

Even when all road vehicles are non-fossil fuelled there will still be concentrations of PM 2.5s near roads because of tyres and brakes. Given that tyre plastics are also significant polluters of waterways and oceans we might expect that further constraints will need to be put on them.