Hydrogen powered cars: Your news and views please

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Hydrogen powered cars: Your news and views please

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261193 20-Jun-2019 07:14

Ok, in that case apologies, seemed like another beat me up on the Hydrogen. My calc hasnt allowed for that so I didnt allow for that as everyone here says it doesnt work.

shk292

2841 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2261209 20-Jun-2019 08:18

tdgeek:

Consented is about 3363 MW A significant amount is smaller niche and regional bits and pieces. Thats far from ideal. So a bit short. Plus all buses in NZ and all light trains. And population growth over three decades. There isn't any room for hydro issues. Low lakes in Summer or low lakes due to demand in Winter, or high snowfalls and hence lower catchment in Winter.

It goes back to a point I made a while ago in a previous post - either CC is a serious issue that we need to spend big money and effort doing our bit to tackle it, possibly at the expense of some snails, taniwhas and sensitivities, or we mess about at the edges doing some virtue signalling, declaring meaningless climate emergencies etc. Would it be possible to double our renewable electricity generation in the next twenty years? I don't see why not, and we need to ensure the right mix to ensure resilience of the network. We're never going to stop the use of all FF and arguably we don't need to.

This has drifted way off H2 powered cars but I think what it has shown is that they're probably a bit of a distraction in the short to medium term

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261213 20-Jun-2019 08:33

shk292:

tdgeek:

Consented is about 3363 MW A significant amount is smaller niche and regional bits and pieces. Thats far from ideal. So a bit short. Plus all buses in NZ and all light trains. And population growth over three decades. There isn't any room for hydro issues. Low lakes in Summer or low lakes due to demand in Winter, or high snowfalls and hence lower catchment in Winter.

It goes back to a point I made a while ago in a previous post - either CC is a serious issue that we need to spend big money and effort doing our bit to tackle it, possibly at the expense of some snails, taniwhas and sensitivities, or we mess about at the edges doing some virtue signalling, declaring meaningless climate emergencies etc. Would it be possible to double our renewable electricity generation in the next twenty years? I don't see why not, and we need to ensure the right mix to ensure resilience of the network. We're never going to stop the use of all FF and arguably we don't need to.

This has drifted way off H2 powered cars but I think what it has shown is that they're probably a bit of a distraction in the short to medium term

Agree. It has drifted off but it dos show that we do need to go all out, and even then we are falling short. A lot of that consented is small, not the big players. There is tidal which is new. There is quite a bit of wind as if to expand that but will it? And Hydro, thats finite. If we did all of that its tight. If most consented was big players with big projects thats a lot easier but a lot of the minor ones wont go ahead. Doubling? I guess that can happen if we go big on wind, and hydro everything we can. Greens will love that. Labour will have to ask them do you want CO2 or Hebes??? In the interests of CC, I'd openly offer to dump them.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2261450 20-Jun-2019 12:24

tdgeek:

Good post. But remember water vapour is a result not a cause. Given that 95% of GG is water vapour, and given how minute CO2 is, yet is still causes extra heating, water vapour will be far less minute, yet it cannot hang around to heat as its lost in days, or hours, or minutes. Water Vapur is not a forcer or a heater. As it cannot stay up there. It is a postive feedbacker if other chemicals heat the atmosphere.

Just when you think you're making progress....

I'm out of here. This is pointless.

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261477 20-Jun-2019 12:53

frankv:

tdgeek:

Good post. But remember water vapour is a result not a cause. Given that 95% of GG is water vapour, and given how minute CO2 is, yet is still causes extra heating, water vapour will be far less minute, yet it cannot hang around to heat as its lost in days, or hours, or minutes. Water Vapur is not a forcer or a heater. As it cannot stay up there. It is a postive feedbacker if other chemicals heat the atmosphere.

Just when you think you're making progress....

I'm out of here. This is pointless.

Are you a climate change recognised scientist? Neither am I, I go by what I read from recognised scientists. Like some people there seems to be a need to make people believe, as bolded, what you think. Whether you are right or not doesnt matter. Before The Industrial Revolution, show me the positive feedback that water vapour was forcing, as it was also then, was still about 95% of all GG. Same in 300AD and so on

Obraik

2121 posts

Uber Geek

#2261488 20-Jun-2019 13:55

tdgeek:

Are you a climate change recognised scientist? Neither am I, I go by what I read from recognised scientists. Like some people there seems to be a need to make people believe, as bolded, what you think. Whether you are right or not doesnt matter. Before The Industrial Revolution, show me the positive feedback that water vapour was forcing, as it was also then, was still about 95% of all GG. Same in 300AD and so on

The problem is you accept the data provided from scientists or experts that support your view but any data presented from scientists or experts that goes against what you think you know you immediately dismiss with little or no evidence to back it up and make accusations of "cherry picking". Where many of our replies provide links that back up what we're saying you come back with replies that have no links or evidence that backs up what you're trying to say and seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261491 20-Jun-2019 14:04

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Are you a climate change recognised scientist? Neither am I, I go by what I read from recognised scientists. Like some people there seems to be a need to make people believe, as bolded, what you think. Whether you are right or not doesnt matter. Before The Industrial Revolution, show me the positive feedback that water vapour was forcing, as it was also then, was still about 95% of all GG. Same in 300AD and so on

The problem is you accept the data provided from scientists or experts that support your view but any data presented from scientists or experts that goes against what you think you know you immediately dismiss with little or no evidence to back it up and make accusations of "cherry picking". Where many of our replies provide links that back up what we're saying you come back with replies that have no links or evidence that backs up what you're trying to say and seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Really? So I dont give links? You give links. Then I check and 6 months later that same site changed its mind. Dont recall you mentioning that. Maybe if some people put their love of EV's behind so they can listen. Apparently water vapour is the scourge of climate change, so we can now hate Hydrogen and love your lovely EV's

From what I can recall, water vapour is a GG. Its also about 95% of all GG. Its also a positive feedback GG. If I recall, all of you agree on those facts? Correct?

wellygary

8253 posts

Uber Geek

#2261495 20-Jun-2019 14:18

Hey guys, get a room :)

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261496 20-Jun-2019 14:19

Yes, or close the thread.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2261523 20-Jun-2019 15:27

TBH, this thread is like deja vu all over again...

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261526 20-Jun-2019 15:33

Ministry of Defence....

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2261528 20-Jun-2019 15:35

tdgeek:

Ministry of Defence....

Sorry, I may well be slow but can you please elaborate?!

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261561 20-Jun-2019 16:55

jonathan18:

tdgeek:

Ministry of Defence....

Sorry, I may well be slow but can you please elaborate?!

:-)

You can't bag Tesla or EV, otherwise you will get "corrected", shown the errors of your ways. I raised the issue of Hydrogen here. H2, which is gas, not liquid. Some people comment based on science. Great. Its a discussion. Some comment based on the fact that if H2 works, its anti EV, so cant possibly put up wit that, so they defend. If I post links they are invalid, if the EV crowd posts links they are valid, that's the default. Look at the Tesla thread. There are some comments there that are not pro Tesla, so here we go again, its the Tesla defence brigade out in force. Defending everything. Lets not have a discussion on the pros and cons, lets just defend Tesla as like Apple they are wondrous. Horror, I have just now bagged Apple!!! BUT I am an Apple user from way back, I really like them. But I'm not so blind to ignore the cons with Apple, just because I like the pros.

In this thread the issue is water vapour. Exhaled from H2 burning. I say its not an issue, and why. They say its a greenhouse gas, is 95% of GG, and that it has positive feedback loop on global warming. So, I'm corrected. Now the funny thing is, the points I just described I agree with them, they are undisputed facts. But there is a reason why H2 burning that exhales water vapour is not a problem. Ive explained why a few times, but either no one reads, or wants to read, or doesn't want anything that can be an opponent to EV's.Also funny is I like EV's. But Im not blind nor do I wear rose coloured glasses. And unlike a couple of comments today, I am not angry or emotive or have any needs. Its JUST a discussion.

steve2222

493 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2261693 20-Jun-2019 21:32

I note there has been some discussion in this thread about Hydrogen powered buses and trains and also what the UK are generally looking to use Hydrogen for.

FWIW this has been screening on BBC Breakfast this morning (Thursday UKT) - not much technical detail:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-48698044/hydrogen-trains-are-these-the-eco-friendly-trains-of-the-future

PS: not sure if there is any geo-blocking on the video.

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2261733 21-Jun-2019 07:28

steve2222:

I note there has been some discussion in this thread about Hydrogen powered buses and trains and also what the UK are generally looking to use Hydrogen for.

FWIW this has been screening on BBC Breakfast this morning (Thursday UKT) - not much technical detail:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-48698044/hydrogen-trains-are-these-the-eco-friendly-trains-of-the-future

PS: not sure if there is any geo-blocking on the video.

What they omitted was how they made the Hydrogen. If its made with FF as is the current process its a waste of time, as you are just emitting the FF in a different place. If they can make it using renewables using improved electrolysis or a different process then its worth looking at. Seems easier to me to outfit the rest of their network so they can run via cabled electricity and dump the battery as well

However, renewables in the UK is low, 30%. Mainly wind and bioenergy. Bioenergy is expensive if you make a plant solely to produce bioenergy as compared to using leftover biomass from the sites existing business. I.e. if you have to transport raw materials in, that produces emissions. Wind, I guess they will be limited to wind

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19