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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Hey guys, get a room  :)

Yes, or close the thread.

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

Ministry of Defence....

tdgeek:

 

Ministry of Defence....

 

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

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. 

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.

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