Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

gzt

10822 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1814


  # 2260541 18-Jun-2019 21:50
Send private message quote this post

Announced last month. In practice this isn't a change of direction for Toyota. Now they have an $8 bet on hydrogen hybrids and a $2 side bet on pure EV. Have to agree at Toyota's size it's big money!

17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260545 18-Jun-2019 22:05
Send private message quote this post

gzt: Announced last month. In practice this isn't a change of direction for Toyota. Now they have an $8 bet on hydrogen hybrids and a $2 side bet on pure EV. Have to agree at Toyota's size it's big money!

 

They have been working on hydrogen since 1992. I checked out the three models the three manufacturers have. Typically they have large tanks, say 150 litres. The fuel costs twice as much as petrol, but it goes twice as far. 

 

If and where there can get renewable manufacturer, its the greenest fuel.

 

Im surprised they are so hybrid-centric. Most of the models will be PHEV, less than 20% will be BEV


 
 
 
 


3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1757

Subscriber

  # 2260610 19-Jun-2019 01:04
3 people support this post
quote this post

tdgeek:

 

You are talking Hydrogen in liquid form. Where it has to be stored at pressure so that it doesn't boil, which is roughly -200C. This means its a problem transporting it and its a problem storing it. H2 is gas, that can be stored and piped as it is now. It would need a change in piping as the atoms are smaller, so top leaks. Other than that use it to heat or cook, replacing your existing LPG heating and cooking. use it in your car, replacing the LPG you currently use. It is more intensive than petrol, so unlike LPG which uses more for the same energy, H2 is more potent so uses less. You can also use it in an EV. Burn this clean fuel to charge a small EV battery

 

The problem is cost to produce it from renewables using electrolysis. That is being worked on to make it quicker and cheaper, which Ive already explained a few times, how.

 

 

H2 is definitely NOT more potent than LPG / Petrol / whatever.

 

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fossil-fuels-energy-content-d_1298.html

 

Compare H2 Vs virtually any other fuel on a volume basis. Liquid Hydrogen has a Nett heating value of 8,490MJ/M3. In comparison LPG has a Nett heating value of 23,648MJ/M3. And Diesel has a Nett heating value of 35,767MJ/M3. This means that even if you store H2 in liquid form, you still need larger tanks for a given energy content.

 

A 238L tank of diesel has the same energy content as a 1000L tank of liquid Hydrogen. And that is before you have even started to consider the cost to make a tank that can safely store 1000L of liquid hydrogen. Yet I can buy 200L plastic barrels and 1000L IBC tanks off Trademe which can easily be used to store diesel. Or I could just buy a 20L jerry can from Supercheap Auto.

 

Hydrogen only appears more potent if you compare it to other fuels on the basis of energy content Vs weight. But since H2 is lighter than air, you need a very large amount of it to get a given weight compared to other fuels. But any cost savings due to lower weight are negated due to larger volumes required. And the weight of the special tanks required to contain Hydrogen.

 

As for making Hydrogen, Remember the law of thermodynamics. The amount of energy that you obtain by burning Hydrogen, will at best be the same amount of energy that you used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. But in reality, You will have energy losses at every conversion stage. So any claim that it would be possible to get vastly more hydrogen from the same amount of electricity - Is complete bollocks. As conventional electrolysis has about 70% efficiency. That means that the max possible efficiency improvements available are only 30%.

 

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

 

In the USA according to the above article. Even with an electricity cost of 6USc per KW/Hr. The cost of producing Hydrogen from electrolysis is still double the cost of producing Hydrogen via Steam Reforming. So in effect, the price of renewable power needs to drop to at least 3USc per KW/Hr. But if you can actually get electricity that cheap (including both the capital and operating costs of generating it). Why would you bother using it to make H2? When you can just use it directly at a household level. Especially as you would still displace fossil fuels for direct energy usage. And for heating - Modern heatpumps can obtain 4:1 COP And you would have delivered heat for just 0.75USc per KW/Hr.

 

Even if you ignore the capital cost of building the necessary H2 infrastructure, H2 will always be expensive compared to EVs. To make an emissions free hydrogen economy actually stack up, you have to assume that carbon neutral electricity can be generated for unrealistically low prices. But applying that same electricity price assumption to EVs or direct usage of electricity. Simply makes EVs even more economical. And it would also lower the carbon emissions of making batteries as well. As it then makes economic sense to replace the fossil fuel inputs with electricity in relation to battery production.

 

Making Hydrogen from metals is also not practical. Remember adding bits of metal to acid to produce Hydrogen back in high school science class? Sure, it is a simple method. But massively wasteful. Considering the energy required to smelt pure metals and produce strong acids.






3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1757

Subscriber

  # 2260611 19-Jun-2019 01:24
One person supports this post
quote this post

There is a possibility that Hydrogen, And the promise of Hydrogen cars and a Hydrogen economy is being used as a distraction to avoid moving away from burning fossil fuels.

 

Remember when BP re branded themselves to "Beyond Petroleum"? And as part of that, they installed solar panels on the roofs of their petrol stations. And made a big song and dance about their investments in companies that make solar panels? It sounded good, and it made you feel good seeing the numbers count up on the sign by the entrance to the shop, that showed you how much power the solar panels had generated. No need to feel guilty that you had just bought 60L of fossil fuels, and you will be back in less than a week to buy another 60L. It also meant that a BP petrol station was the first place that I had personally seen a grid connect solar power installation in operation.

 

 

 

Sure, Those solar panels would have reduced carbon emissions a little bit. But the emissions avoided as a % of the total carbon emissions that resulted from the fuel sales from just 1 petrol station. It would be less than a rounding error.

 

But the main reason for those solar panels - To give the illusion that the oil companies have plans, solutions, and intentions to solve global warming.

 

Z energy installing EV chargers is another example.

 

Hydrogen might be another version of the above.

 

I recall seeing  a TV program over 20 years ago about hydrogen cars. And it had a prototype car on the program that was made by GM, and yes that car was shown being driven. The program implied that we would soon all be driving those cars.






17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260634 19-Jun-2019 07:29
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood:

 

tdgeek:

 

You are talking Hydrogen in liquid form. Where it has to be stored at pressure so that it doesn't boil, which is roughly -200C. This means its a problem transporting it and its a problem storing it. H2 is gas, that can be stored and piped as it is now. It would need a change in piping as the atoms are smaller, so top leaks. Other than that use it to heat or cook, replacing your existing LPG heating and cooking. use it in your car, replacing the LPG you currently use. It is more intensive than petrol, so unlike LPG which uses more for the same energy, H2 is more potent so uses less. You can also use it in an EV. Burn this clean fuel to charge a small EV battery

 

The problem is cost to produce it from renewables using electrolysis. That is being worked on to make it quicker and cheaper, which Ive already explained a few times, how.

 

 

H2 is definitely NOT more potent than LPG / Petrol / whatever.

 

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fossil-fuels-energy-content-d_1298.html

 

Compare H2 Vs virtually any other fuel on a volume basis. Liquid Hydrogen has a Nett heating value of 8,490MJ/M3. In comparison LPG has a Nett heating value of 23,648MJ/M3. And Diesel has a Nett heating value of 35,767MJ/M3. This means that even if you store H2 in liquid form, you still need larger tanks for a given energy content.

 

A 238L tank of diesel has the same energy content as a 1000L tank of liquid Hydrogen. And that is before you have even started to consider the cost to make a tank that can safely store 1000L of liquid hydrogen. Yet I can buy 200L plastic barrels and 1000L IBC tanks off Trademe which can easily be used to store diesel. Or I could just buy a 20L jerry can from Supercheap Auto.

 

Hydrogen only appears more potent if you compare it to other fuels on the basis of energy content Vs weight. But since H2 is lighter than air, you need a very large amount of it to get a given weight compared to other fuels. But any cost savings due to lower weight are negated due to larger volumes required. And the weight of the special tanks required to contain Hydrogen.

 

As for making Hydrogen, Remember the law of thermodynamics. The amount of energy that you obtain by burning Hydrogen, will at best be the same amount of energy that you used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. But in reality, You will have energy losses at every conversion stage. So any claim that it would be possible to get vastly more hydrogen from the same amount of electricity - Is complete bollocks. As conventional electrolysis has about 70% efficiency. That means that the max possible efficiency improvements available are only 30%.

 

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

 

In the USA according to the above article. Even with an electricity cost of 6USc per KW/Hr. The cost of producing Hydrogen from electrolysis is still double the cost of producing Hydrogen via Steam Reforming. So in effect, the price of renewable power needs to drop to at least 3USc per KW/Hr. But if you can actually get electricity that cheap (including both the capital and operating costs of generating it). Why would you bother using it to make H2? When you can just use it directly at a household level. Especially as you would still displace fossil fuels for direct energy usage. And for heating - Modern heatpumps can obtain 4:1 COP And you would have delivered heat for just 0.75USc per KW/Hr.

 

Even if you ignore the capital cost of building the necessary H2 infrastructure, H2 will always be expensive compared to EVs. To make an emissions free hydrogen economy actually stack up, you have to assume that carbon neutral electricity can be generated for unrealistically low prices. But applying that same electricity price assumption to EVs or direct usage of electricity. Simply makes EVs even more economical. And it would also lower the carbon emissions of making batteries as well. As it then makes economic sense to replace the fossil fuel inputs with electricity in relation to battery production.

 

Making Hydrogen from metals is also not practical. Remember adding bits of metal to acid to produce Hydrogen back in high school science class? Sure, it is a simple method. But massively wasteful. Considering the energy required to smelt pure metals and produce strong acids.

 

 

Re energy/potency, see below

 

Re metals, I didnt mean make H2 from metals. They are researching using other metals for the anode/cathode that allow the reaction to be quicker and cheaper. The reason is that there is no point making H2 from FF.

 

The bottom line is why are so many people and so many scientists going down this track? We are in a climate change awareness period. H2 is greener, it is plentiful, the issue is cost of making via renewables.  Do we know more? And should we ignore this source? If they can make it via renewables at a cost that the world can live with, is that not worth pursuing? And according to this thread, cost is not a problem, as the saving of fuel costs of an EV is not why people buy them.

 

Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile. Automakers are including three years of hydrogen fuel with their initial sales and lease offerings, which will shield early market adopters from this initially high fuel price.

 

While future price is uncertain, NREL estimates that hydrogen fuel prices may fall to the $10 to $8 per kg range in the 2020 to 2025 period. A kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. FCEVs are about twice as efficient as gasoline-powered vehicles: an FCEV travels about twice as far as a conventional vehicle given the same amount of fuel energy. At $3.50 per gallon gasoline, a conventional vehicle costs about $0.13 per mile to operate, while an FCEV using $8 per kg hydrogen fuel would cost about $0.12 per mile.

 

Reference: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-600-2015-016/CEC-600-2015-016.pdf (page 7)

 

 

 

 


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260635 19-Jun-2019 07:34
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood:

 

There is a possibility that Hydrogen, And the promise of Hydrogen cars and a Hydrogen economy is being used as a distraction to avoid moving away from burning fossil fuels.

 

 

 

 

Except that most of the Hydrogen research and investment is not by oil companies. Three car companies, the UK is heavy into it, and has many active projects in use right now at test levels. Gas stations, housing estate, etc. And the quest to make renewable H2 cheaper

 

But it seems we know more?

 

I feel its foolhardy to just dismiss an opportunity. If they succeeded in making H2 from renewables that was bearable cost wise, the big problem is solved. Green manufacture and green burning


3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1757

Subscriber

  # 2260653 19-Jun-2019 08:41
quote this post

tdgeek:

Re energy/potency, see below


Re metals, I didnt mean make H2 from metals. They are researching using other metals for the anode/cathode that allow the reaction to be quicker and cheaper. The reason is that there is no point making H2 from FF.


The bottom line is why are so many people and so many scientists going down this track? We are in a climate change awareness period. H2 is greener, it is plentiful, the issue is cost of making via renewables.  Do we know more? And should we ignore this source? If they can make it via renewables at a cost that the world can live with, is that not worth pursuing? And according to this thread, cost is not a problem, as the saving of fuel costs of an EV is not why people buy them.


Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile. Automakers are including three years of hydrogen fuel with their initial sales and lease offerings, which will shield early market adopters from this initially high fuel price.


While future price is uncertain, NREL estimates that hydrogen fuel prices may fall to the $10 to $8 per kg range in the 2020 to 2025 period. A kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. FCEVs are about twice as efficient as gasoline-powered vehicles: an FCEV travels about twice as far as a conventional vehicle given the same amount of fuel energy. At $3.50 per gallon gasoline, a conventional vehicle costs about $0.13 per mile to operate, while an FCEV using $8 per kg hydrogen fuel would cost about $0.12 per mile.


Reference: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-600-2015-016/CEC-600-2015-016.pdf (page 7)


 


 



That above quote doesn't even reference what the fuel economy of the petrol car is. That they are using as a comparison for the hydrogen car. Did they compare to a Toyota Prius or to a Ford F650 Super Duty?

The same report also says that H2 cars offer a 65% emissions reduction. And battery electric cars a 70% emissions reduction. (bottom of page 9)

Presumably those EVs would have been charged using normal USA grid power which is mostly fossil fuel generation. Meaning plenty more scope to further reduce their emissions by charging EVs with renewable electricity.

More efficient anode and cathode materials cannot bypass the law of thermodynamics.

As for cost savings. Read the Nissan Leaf thread. There is a least 1 person who has said that they have saved enough money on petrol costs to recoup the purchase cost of their Leaf.





 
 
 
 


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260668 19-Jun-2019 08:55
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood:
tdgeek:

 

Re energy/potency, see below

 

 

 

Re metals, I didnt mean make H2 from metals. They are researching using other metals for the anode/cathode that allow the reaction to be quicker and cheaper. The reason is that there is no point making H2 from FF.

 

 

 

The bottom line is why are so many people and so many scientists going down this track? We are in a climate change awareness period. H2 is greener, it is plentiful, the issue is cost of making via renewables.  Do we know more? And should we ignore this source? If they can make it via renewables at a cost that the world can live with, is that not worth pursuing? And according to this thread, cost is not a problem, as the saving of fuel costs of an EV is not why people buy them.

 

 

 

Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile. Automakers are including three years of hydrogen fuel with their initial sales and lease offerings, which will shield early market adopters from this initially high fuel price.

 

 

 

While future price is uncertain, NREL estimates that hydrogen fuel prices may fall to the $10 to $8 per kg range in the 2020 to 2025 period. A kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. FCEVs are about twice as efficient as gasoline-powered vehicles: an FCEV travels about twice as far as a conventional vehicle given the same amount of fuel energy. At $3.50 per gallon gasoline, a conventional vehicle costs about $0.13 per mile to operate, while an FCEV using $8 per kg hydrogen fuel would cost about $0.12 per mile.

 

 

 

Reference: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-600-2015-016/CEC-600-2015-016.pdf (page 7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



That above quote doesn't even reference what the fuel economy of the petrol car is. That they are using as a comparison for the hydrogen car. Did they compare to a Toyota Prius or to a Ford F650 Super Duty?

The same report also says that H2 cars offer a 65% emissions reduction. And battery electric cars a 70% emissions reduction. (bottom of page 9)

Presumably those EVs would have been charged using normal USA grid power which is mostly fossil fuel generation. Meaning plenty more scope to further reduce their emissions by charging EVs with renewable electricity.

More efficient anode and cathode materials cannot bypass the law of thermodynamics.

As for cost savings. Read the Nissan Leaf thread. There is a least 1 person who has said that they have saved enough money on petrol costs to recoup the purchase cost of their Leaf.

 

The Wikipedias of the 3 Hydrogen cars gives mpg about double petrol. The cost was about double per equivalent, so the end result is about neutral. BUT, movoing forward, its about clean energy, which the current method isn't

 

You need to ask the scientists who are not from BP etc, why they are going down this track. And when they say they are testing other metals that are cheaper and are quicker, yet you dispute that, who is everyone supposed to believe?

 

This thread is not What do you think of Hydrogen Cars? Its Please bag Hydrogen Cars as we are EV Fanboys. I read all the anti comments here and I read all the research and tests and projects that are going on. I say that Hydrogen is plentiful and I get a know all saying its not.

 

Waste of time this thread

 

As to fuel savings, they are not important. Just a side issue, not important. That's from this thread. We should not care that an EV costs twice the price of its equivalent (Kona as one example). If we have an issue with that we are not serious about climate change. Again, from this thread. Some people need a reality check.


3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1757

Subscriber

  # 2260694 19-Jun-2019 09:28
One person supports this post
quote this post

I'm not disputing that other metals would make better anodes etc. But remember- you cannot get more energy out, than what you originally put in. This is the limiting factor.

Hydrogen is only plentiful because it is contained in water. The problem with hydrogen is that you need lots of energy to split the water into gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen. The same amount of energy that you get when you burn hydrogen. Again the law of thermodynamics- Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

And look at the amount of taxpayers money that is getting spent on building those hydrogen cars and hydrogen refueling stations. As detailed in the report that you linked to. Give the same subsidies to purchasing EVs and they will also be alot cheaper.

Agree that we are not serious about climate change. As this government that we have, doesn't want to build more hydro power stations. They want to get rid of Natural gas and LPG, instead of getting rid of coal.

But building more hydro and geothermal power plants is by far the cheapest way for NZ to reduce emissions. And anyway, where is the renewable power going to come from, that would be needed to make hydrogen in NZ?

As for me being a fanboy, why cant I like something that is better than the alternative? Should I start a thread, claiming that ADSL and HFC are better than fibre for an Internet connection? And another thread about how wonderful fossil fuel cars are.






1705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 943


  # 2260699 19-Jun-2019 09:37
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Really, we should be thinking of hydrogen as an energy storage medium, not as an energy source.  It doesn't exist in the H2 form in nature.

 

So the argument comes down to whether as a storage medium, it's more efficient or has other advantages over BEVs.  It doesn't appear so at this stage, but that's not saying research should be stopped.


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260706 19-Jun-2019 09:47
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood: I'm not disputing that other metals would make better anodes etc. But remember- you cannot get more energy out, than what you originally put in. This is the limiting factor.

Hydrogen is only plentiful because it is contained in water. The problem with hydrogen is that you need lots of energy to split the water into gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen. The same amount of energy that you get when you burn hydrogen. Again the law of thermodynamics- Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

And look at the amount of taxpayers money that is getting spent on building those hydrogen cars and hydrogen refueling stations. As detailed in the report that you linked to. Give the same subsidies to purchasing EVs and they will also be alot cheaper.

Agree that we are not serious about climate change. As this government that we have, doesn't want to build more hydro power stations. They want to get rid of Natural gas and LPG, instead of getting rid of coal.

But building more hydro and geothermal power plants is by far the cheapest way for NZ to reduce emissions. And anyway, where is the renewable power going to come from, that would be needed to make hydrogen in NZ?

As for me being a fanboy, why cant I like something that is better than the alternative? Should I start a thread, claiming that ADSL and HFC are better than fibre for an Internet connection? And another thread about how wonderful fossil fuel cars are.

 

LOL , no you are not the fanboy here. Your expertise is always welcome and appreciated

 

Scientists seem happy to push forward on this, and note that H2 for cars isnt the real story, its getting access to H2. They can make the process more efficient they say. Lets say you need x amount of renewable energy to make x amount of H2 energy. Thats converting green energy to a usable green energy. Hydro is not unlimited, especially if we want to use more and more electricity to replace FF. If I need gas, I can't cook or heat with hydro or solar or wind.  I can use those though, to convert that green energy to green energy I can use, H2.  But off course I can, but we wont have enough hydro for everything. Even if we added more.

 

I agree that we need more hydro. I would rather we spent money on that rather than give someone $10,000 or more so they can buy a car, that used 20 tonne of CO2 to make the battery, and will cause more FF to be used in electricity generation here.

 

Me, I don't have a specific interest in Hydrogen. My interest is moving forward in battling climate change. EV has a place, H2 has a place, solar, wind, water, hydro. Or we can just want 10k to save money on our personal EV. Thats the theme here from some, not all. So, many here dont actually have a genuine interest in climate change as they want to be paid for their EV, not a very good investment in $ to save emmissions


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260707 19-Jun-2019 09:50
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

Really, we should be thinking of hydrogen as an energy storage medium, not as an energy source.  It doesn't exist in the H2 form in nature.

 

So the argument comes down to whether as a storage medium, it's more efficient or has other advantages over BEVs.  It doesn't appear so at this stage, but that's not saying research should be stopped.

 

 

Storage, not source? Don't follow that.


1705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 943


  # 2260713 19-Jun-2019 09:57
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

Storage, not source? Don't follow that.

 

 

There's no significant quantity of Hydrogen in its H2 form.  So, the only way to produce H2 is to use energy from another source (eg FF or renewables).  You can then use the H2 to burn or in a fuel cell etc.  But - and it's a very big but - the energy released in burning etc is never going to be as much as the energy consumed in production.

 

So producing H2 is like charging a battery - you put energy in, and then when you need it, you use the stored energy.

 

The argument then comes down to whether storing energy as H2 is more efficient, or more environmentally friendly, or has some other advantage over batteries or other storage systems.


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2260735 19-Jun-2019 10:11
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

tdgeek:

 

Storage, not source? Don't follow that.

 

 

There's no significant quantity of Hydrogen in its H2 form.  So, the only way to produce H2 is to use energy from another source (eg FF or renewables).  You can then use the H2 to burn or in a fuel cell etc.  But - and it's a very big but - the energy released in burning etc is never going to be as much as the energy consumed in production.

 

So producing H2 is like charging a battery - you put energy in, and then when you need it, you use the stored energy.

 

The argument then comes down to whether storing energy as H2 is more efficient, or more environmentally friendly, or has some other advantage over batteries or other storage systems.

 

 

Ok, got you now. A litre of petrol costs $2-30 It takes me a few km. Then its gone. How much energy was used to find it, drill for it, store it, transport it to a ship, sail it to NZ, store it, refine it, transport it to my gas station? Then it takes me maybe 10km and its gone, and it sent emissions into the atmosphere. 


1705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 943


  # 2260739 19-Jun-2019 10:15
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

Ok, got you now. A litre of petrol costs $2-30 It takes me a few km. Then its gone. How much energy was used to find it, drill for it, store it, transport it to a ship, sail it to NZ, store it, refine it, transport it to my gas station? Then it takes me maybe 10km and its gone, and it sent emissions into the atmosphere. 

 

 

Answer to how much energy - "some, but significantly less than it produces on burning".  Otherwise, there would be no point in extracting it.  Oil and all FFs are a net energy source.  H2 production and use is a net energy drain - there is no escaping that.


1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Huawei's scholarship programme showcases international business to Kiwi undergrads
Posted 22-Jul-2019 17:53


Spark Sport launches across a range of new devices
Posted 22-Jul-2019 13:19


Dunedin selects Telensa to deliver smart street lighting for 15,000 LEDs
Posted 18-Jul-2019 10:21


Sprint announces a connected wallet card with built-in IoT support
Posted 18-Jul-2019 08:36


Educational tool developed at Otago makes international launch
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:57


Symantec introduces cloud access security solution
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:48


New Zealand government unveils new digital service to make business easier
Posted 16-Jul-2019 17:35


Scientists unveil image of quantum entanglement
Posted 13-Jul-2019 06:00


Hackers to be challenged at University of Waikato
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:34


OPPO Reno Z now available in New Zealand
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:28


Sony introduces WF-1000XM3 wireless headphones with noise cancellation
Posted 8-Jul-2019 16:56


Xero announces new smarter tools, push into the North American market
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:20


New report by Unisys shows New Zealanders want action by social platform companies and police to monitor social media sites
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:09


ASB adds Google Pay option to contactless payments
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:05


New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.