Tomorrow's battery medium

He's good proof that a bit of IQ does not equal intelligence.

it's explosive in small quantities over a very wide range of air/H2 mixtures. And it loves to leak. Therein lies an issue - but one we could choose to live with.

ali powder is known as solid rocket fuel today, then no-one knew.

if it can be cheaper than sea, great. I don't know if it can. Wind vulnerability is an issue. Did the French continue to use hydrogen airships for cargo? I can't remember.

Oh yes. I saw the footage, but sadly the same applies to all transport.

NT

of course - the question is when. If it's not in our lifetimes, we don't ne ed to spend a fortune changing things that don't need changed. The grandkid s might end up doing that, or might not.

of course, but not at a rate that's a problem

it gets cheaper as technology & equipment improves. What's getting more exp ensive is the list of western govt requirements.

yes, and that observation often leads the ignorant to think they can replac e fossils.

nothing indicates that it'll be any time soon

obviously rechargeable batteries have other uses, but I think the wires got crossed somewhere round here

it's moot, the point is there are masses of busy petrol stations.

quelle surprise

not at all. Pick your numbers, guess if you must, & calculate. You'll quick ly see why they're non starters.

immaterial.

y.

of course we don't, whatever 'clean' means.

sometimes, mostly not. And clearly not in this case.

Iceland uses a very small percentage of the world's electicity

stem is

All the equipment & ancillaries need to be designed, manufactured, transpor ted & installed, maintained & decommissioned. How do you think that could b e done without producing a pile of CO2?

And since they're all intermittent generators, you still need all the same conventional gnerating capacity, so lots of time, money & human effort is s pent achieving nothing. Less than nothing actually, those resources could h ave done something valuable. Many things.

wind no, turbines want high wind sites, nearly all the uk is not. The resul t is a lot of windmills sitting around idle. Or turning but putting very li ttle out.

Waves no-one has yet been able to harvest at a competitive price. Maybe one day.

very little of our electricity comes from hydroelectric. Hydro schemes also consume vast amounts of land & endanger another vast amount of land.

One plus point does not make it a good alternative.

It has a long long way to come down before it becomes useful. It still coul d not take over from fossils though.

no kidding

there is no mess & no problem. If & when oil gets expensive then people wil l look at other options. We're not near that time yet.

for a brief period there was correlation between CO2 emission & temperature . The correlation is now gone and there is no valid reason to believe the 2 are connected. The 'science' behind it isn't science at all. It never was.

NT

for an engineer that understands the basics of the situation that is no surprise. It's good at least someone is getting real about it.

NT

says:

If we assume the extra electricity comes from the existing mix of non-base-load sources (as nighttime charging likely would),

Dudes's got an axe top grind, not a clue.

There's no reason to assume that. Assuming you are talking about BEV charg ing (I couldn't tell for sure what you were replying to from the way you po sted), it is more likely that the continuous use of night time charging wou ld change the ratio of peak and base capacity requirements. The power comp anies aren't stupid. They know what to expect and will respond accordingly . I seriously doubt we will need to create any legislation to get them to do what makes sense from everyone's perspective.

Rick C.

Nonsense; wave power feeds all the local bivalves, and they're very much a commercial product with lots of buyers.

Nonsense, of course; people ARE looking at other options, that's the WHOLE POINT HERE. You just want to put up a wall between 'those people' and yourself, and depersonalize the folk on the other side of your imaginary wall. Denialism and foolishness, right there in that sentence.

no, just basic science. Instead of the kind of thing that often passes for science these days.

NT

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:30:47 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrot e:

e:

who think that because something isn't being done now, it is impossible tha t it might be done sometime soon.

s POSSIBLE to upgrade the grid by 10x to support that.

gasoline power cars were replaced by grid-charge electric cars.

tric cars vs the CO2 reduction and YOUR ARTICLE concludes that:

sions, "

You missed the line "If we assume the extra electricity comes from the exis ting mix of non-base-load sources (as nighttime charging likely would)".

If the US doesn't moved it's electricity generating system to burning less fossil carbon, going over to electric cars would indeed do relatively littl e to reduce CO2 emissions.

The problem that electric cars address is more that even if the US did go t o the trouble of cleaning up its electricity generating system, driving aro und in gasoline powered cars would still leave the US emitting a lot more C O2 than would be good for the planet.

You do seem to have missed that point.

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 5:15:31 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

Since I don't have reliable figure for my own IQ (and wouldn't put much val ue on it if I did) and have never boasted about whatever it might be, NT cl early doesn't understand what "a good proof" might look like.

His ideas about other people's intelligence are about as reliable as the re st of his silly ideas, and I see him as a sucker for all sorts of out-of-da te nonsense. I even get to nail him on it from time to time, but he's much too vain to realise when he has made a fool of himself.

His claim that anthropogenic global warming had stopped recently was today' s ignorant lunacy.

There was an intense EL Nino in 1998 that produced a peak that wasn't surpa ssed until 2005, and for a few years the denialist web-sites did claim that anthropogenc global warming was going backwards.

Clearly NT hasn't had a more recent nonsense infusion. Real measurements sa y something different.

Not exactly true.

was invented in 1894, and widely used long before 1937.

ote:

e who think that because something isn't being done now, it is impossible t hat it might be done sometime soon.

is POSSIBLE to upgrade the grid by 10x to support that.

f gasoline power cars were replaced by grid-charge electric cars.

ectric cars vs the CO2 reduction and YOUR ARTICLE concludes that:

issions, "

urprise. It's good at least someone is getting real about it.

That observation was predicated on the explicit assumption that electricity generators would keep on generating electricity by burning fossil carbon, which would be unrealistic in a context where the society was worried enoug h about CO2 emissions to contemplate moving to electric cars in large numbe rs.

NT is an expert in the gullible absorption of unrealistic propaganda, and h is idea of "getting real" is more like an appreciation that some other peop le share his demented delusions.

NT seems to think what he gets from denialist web-sites is "basic science".

Today he told us that anthropogenic global warming had stopped in its tracks, which doesn't happen to be true.

It seems that what NT soaks up as "basic science" would look more like propaganda (probably with added extra flattery) to a more objective observer.

John Larkin seems to have the same kind of problem.

indeed, that was a quote from Tabby's link.

PS was just reading that Amsterdam Harbour, Tata Steel and Nouryon in the Netherlands has plans to build a 15,000 tons per year H2 plant using electrolysis. They expect to reduce CO2 emission that way by 350,000 tons a year. A decision on building that plant will be taken in 2021, and building it should be finished a few years later. From (in Dutch):

link will change over time, it is a newsfeed.

Actually it was a quote from my link, which I'd used to pick up the figure that car energy use in the US is currently equal to about 29% of the US ele ctricity output.

The thrust of the link was that if electric cars got their energy from the existing electrical generating system, they wouldn't make much difference t o CO2 emissions, which is decidedly obvious, and rather misses the point th at electric cars - combined with electricity generation system that emitted a lot less CO2 - are necessary part of getting US CO2 emissions down below their current planet-wrecking levels.

Mark Ferguson exploited this to take a cheap shot - which did show him up a s being less than interested in the subject under discussion

But where does the electricity come from and what are they going to do with all that H2?

I think 15000 tons of hydrogen could reduce CO2 emissions by about 150000 tons, but there are lots of dirty tricks you can play with those numbers.

Jeroen Belleman

I didn't give a link.

NT

Netherlands has plans

Probably off-shore wind farms. The Danes got there first, but the Dutch als o have a lot of nice shallow North Sea to exploit.

Liquefy it, put it in tankers and ship it to Japan?

If you compare the energy yield from burning hydrogen to water -572 kJ,from two moles of hydrogen, with the energy yield from burning carbon to carbon dioxide, -393.5 kJ/mole, the mass of carbon dioxide you produce is 44 gra ms, while you have burnt up just two gram moles of hydrogen (H2) - 4 grams

- to produce 1.45 times the energy.

On my calculator, this means that 1.5x10^4 tonnes of hydrogen equates to 24 x10^4 tonnes of CO2.

I don't see any dirty tricks you could play. Gasoline is roughly CH2, and n atural gas is essentially methane at CH4. and burning either of those will get you more energy while producing less CO2.