Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:25 am

I mentioned hydrogen on here about a year ago. We already have hydrogen trains, buses and lorries, so why not extend that to cars? Electric cars need charging points all over the place, whereas hydrogen can be bought at existing petrol stations, so virtually no new infrastructure is needed. (Just adapt the tanks on the forecourt.) Also, with hydrogen, there is no need to wait hours while the car recharges. You just fill and go like petrol or diesel, but it's a lot cleaner.

Because the Government wouldn’t be able to continue to rip us off with 40% fuel duty or whatever it is if we used an alternative..

Bradford plans hydrogen energy hub in city:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vlv2x7lddo

Rolls Royce start testing hydrogen aircraft engine:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63758937

Here in Perth Western Australia BP recently closed their oil refinery down which supplied fuel to all the various fuel companies in the state.
However, they are just beginning to start a new project at the old refinery.
Bio Diesel. My mate has just started on the project in a leed role.

It seem the public are increasingly wanting their say on net zero.

When the “don’t knows” were excluded, 62 per cent wanted a referendum. A poll on the same question a year ago found that 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.

1882Clarets1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:34 pm

It seem the public are increasingly wanting their say on net zero.

When the “don’t knows” were excluded, 62 per cent wanted a referendum. A poll on the same question a year ago found that 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.

Poll commissioned by climate change deniers CAR26.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:42 pm

Poll commissioned by climate change deniers CAR26.

When Wrongo doesn’t include a link, always check the receipts.

Haven't referendums voted for by people who believe everything they read on facebook not done enough damage?

Also, considering the poll runners had a clear vested interest, and will have engineered the poll in a calculated way, those percentages are hardly anything to write home about.

And if it turns out that climate change was all a hoax, we all live in a beautiful planet with vastly reduced emissions

Win/win I reckon

Interesting thing I heard yesterday which is just about on topic.
Someone I know who owns a Tesla normally charges it in Colne. The chargers are fairly slow and take most of the day.

The council in their wisdom decided have put a 3 hours limit on the parking spaces.
So the last time he charged it he also got a parking ticket as he didn’t know about the 3 hour limit. Those charges are no virtually useless as what’s the point of going through the issues of putting in all your details to get the charger working to only top up by 30% your batteries.

These people need to think these decisions through.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:42 pm

Poll commissioned by climate change deniers CAR26.

YouGov did the polling.

1882Clarets1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 4:06 pm

YouGov did the polling.

Commissioned by the climate change deniers CAR26.

1882Clarets1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:34 pm

It seem the public are increasingly wanting their say on net zero.

When the “don’t knows” were excluded, 62 per cent wanted a referendum. A poll on the same question a year ago found that 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.

When the oil and gas companies say they support net zero the only thing the rest of us need to decide is how can we help.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 4:36 pm

Commissioned by the climate change deniers CAR26.

The implication being that you feel YouGov get the answer they believe their client requires. Fair enough. Its worth noting that this year its seems as its been easier to do it , as those saying they want a referendum has increased.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 4:57 pm

When the oil and gas companies say they support net zero the only thing the rest of us need to decide is how can we help.

The less fortunate may not have that luxury. The only decision they're making is whether to eat or heat.

1882Clarets1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:18 pm

The less fortunate may not have that luxury. The only decision they're making is whether to eat or heat.

Climate change is raising temperatures. Fewer people are dying from cold. Climate change is also making it easier to grow food.

The "less fortunate" don't live in the UK or Europe (current situation in Ukraine excepted).

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:27 pm

Climate change is raising temperatures. Fewer people are dying from cold. Climate change is also making it easier to grow food.

The "less fortunate" don't live in the UK or Europe (current situation in Ukraine excepted).

I'm sorry Paul , but the idea that there aren't people in this country struggling to make ends meet and pay utility bills , that have trebled in many cases, is just daft.

1882Clarets1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:03 pm

I'm sorry Paul , but the idea that there aren't people in this country struggling to make ends meet and pay utility bills , that have trebled in many cases, is just daft.

The current high energy prices have got nothing to do with climate change. It's all to do with covid-19 pandemic shutdown and then restart with Russia's invasion of Ukraine making things much worse.

Food prices are high directly from Russia invading Ukraine and impacting Ukraine wheat and other agricultural products to global markets.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:27 pm

Climate change is raising temperatures. Fewer people are dying from cold. Climate change is also making it easier to grow food.

The "less fortunate" don't live in the UK or Europe (current situation in Ukraine excepted).

Indeed, think of all the rice we could grow in London's new paddy fields.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:21 pm

Indeed, think of all the rice we could grow in London's new paddy fields.

Often grown on terraced hillsides. Pendle rice, anyone?

Why would we hold a referendum on a manifesto commitment of the current govt that was democratically voted into power by the British people?

If we don't think that govt has a mandate anymore to deliver their manifesto then lets have a general election as thats how democracy is supposed to work in this country

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:33 pm

Why would we hold a referendum on a manifesto commitment of the current govt that was democratically voted into power by the British people?

If we don't think that govt has a mandate anymore to deliver their manifesto then lets have a general election as thats how democracy is supposed to work in this country

Because it’s a good way of getting a minority view onto the statute book.

1882Clarets1882 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:18 pm

The less fortunate may not have that luxury. The only decision they're making is whether to eat or heat.

I think the number of people who have cut out all spending except eating and heating is less than you might think. And those that do, are surely not getting all the benefits they should be.

Hydrogen replacing gas trials in homes proposed for Whitby in 2025:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64028510

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:16 pm

Often grown on terraced hillsides. Pendle rice, anyone?

Kibble Bank Risotto sounds awfully like a euphemism

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:18 pm

And if it turns out that climate change was all a hoax, we all live in a beautiful planet with vastly reduced emissions

Win/win I reckon

There is such simplicity in your viewpoint and I wish others could see that too

I am told its expensive to split from water. I have been reading about Fusion as opposed to Fission and it seems there is potential in this method of producing energy, although its in the very early stages and not expected to be available on a mass scale till 2030. The problem at the moment is the price of electricty. The people let down again by those that are supposed to govern. Guy Fawkes missed a trick.

few links for anyone interested enough

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/toyota-hyd ... pickup-suv

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/07/13/ ... t-heating/

https://www.theworldofhydrogen.com/gasu ... -hydrogen/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=san52L85Mjc

Hipper wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:02 am

Hydrogen replacing gas trials in homes proposed for Whitby in 2025:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64028510

One of my mates is a project manager for part of this. Tried getting me on board but im still knee deep working on some Smart metering transformation stuff. All Ive heard from him at the moment is how much of a nightmare it is to coordinate all the energy suppliers around the installation process and to make sure all the new meters are Smart.

Next time I see him I'll Im gonna do a bit more digging as Ive had sight of some longer term commercial plans based on the success of this which look very interesting and innovative.

Hi Kate,
I attended a seminar a few months back on hydrogen production/usage in the NW industrial area around Ellesmere Port and Runcorn which traditionally had the large firms of Shell and ICI in situ. There was a very informative talk by an Oxbridge professor who had done a lot of research into the economics of using hydrogen and basically it was horrendously expensive and uneconomical. I know that the cost of producing hydrogen, via electrolysis from my A level chemistry days, was very expensive so how do you see it being produced in sufficient quantities to make it a viable alternative to EVs?
I personally don't own an EV for range anxiety reasons but would certainly consider a hydrogen powered vehicle if the infrastructure and safety concerns were addressed.

Some information about electric central heating boilers which may be suitable for ‘smaller’ homes e.g. terraced houses

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/boilers ... ZpQ1U7Ds6U

CaptJohn wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:36 am

Hi Kate,
I attended a seminar a few months back on hydrogen production/usage in the NW industrial area around Ellesmere Port and Runcorn which traditionally had the large firms of Shell and ICI in situ. There was a very informative talk by an Oxbridge professor who had done a lot of research into the economics of using hydrogen and basically it was horrendously expensive and uneconomical. I know that the cost of producing hydrogen, via electrolysis from my A level chemistry days, was very expensive so how do you see it being produced in sufficient quantities to make it a viable alternative to EVs?
I personally don't own an EV for range anxiety reasons but would certainly consider a hydrogen powered vehicle if the infrastructure and safety concerns were addressed.

Hi CaptJohn, I worked at Shell Stanlow in the early 1980s. I've just googled Oxford and Hyrdogen. Responses include Oxford Green Ammonia Technology / OXGATE. Their website describes a lot of the things OXGATE is doing researching into Green Ammonia as a marine fuel and other projects.

https://eng.ox.ac.uk/green-ammonia/

Hi Paul,
I was brought up in Helsby close to Stanlow and had a lot of friends who worked there. I did science A levels and my careers teacher always thought I'd end up at either Shell or ICI but I needed some fresh air in my lungs after seven years in school and finished up at sea. The hydrogen debate is rather strange as it's obviously a clean fuel but is uneconomic to produce unless you have massive amounts of renewable energy to use, which somehow doesn't seem an efficient usage. The marine fuel debate is only just starting with ammonia being touted as one possibility but the big elephant in the room WRT shipping is the massive amount of training needed before we can even begin to start using alternative fuels at sea.

CaptJohn wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:36 am

Hi Kate,
I know that the cost of producing hydrogen, via electrolysis from my A level chemistry days, was very expensive so how do you see it being produced in sufficient quantities to make it a viable alternative to EVs?

Hi CaptJohn,
yes electrolysis is expensive, however the price continues to drop but it will never be the solution to the needed change but I expect it to be part of the solution for a long time. I have been working in this arena for over two years now, applying a life time of knowhow including BD as a consultant to several companies including Fortune 500 companies.

My belief is that W2H2 (Waste to Hydrogen) will provide a much better solution at a reasonable cost, the first plant is in engineering design to be located NE of LA, California. I have the technology design for the front end Plasma Gasification, which is part of the original NASA development in the early space days, it was developed to provide enough heat to simulate re-entry and the heat that would be generated. This heat is beyond that of normal gasifiers and make considerable difference in that it actually disintegrates the waste down to the molecular level, this avoids tars and toxic fly ash, which would require secondary treatment to remove.

The picture shows the main advantages of W2H2 over Electrolysis, the plant in design produce three time the amount of hydrogen that the largest electrolyzer plants in existence. There is a second plant in N California that will follow the same design but will produce liquid hydrogen. These plants are utilizing a single plasma gasifier and the design of a plant using three plasma gasifiers in ongoing presently, which will obviously mean much larger hydrogen production units will be available. The waste can be from multiple sources, the first one is from non-recyclable paper, the second from forest floor clearing, basically wood chips as a feedstock.

KateR wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 23, 2022 5:34 pm

Hi CaptJohn,
yes electrolysis is expensive, however the price continues to drop but it will never be the solution to the needed change but I expect it to be part of the solution for a long time. I have been working in this arena for over two years now, applying a life time of knowhow including BD as a consultant to several companies including Fortune 500 companies.

My belief is that W2H2 (Waste to Hydrogen) will provide a much better solution at a reasonable cost, the first plant is in engineering design to be located NE of LA, California. I have the technology design for the front end Plasma Gasification, which is part of the original NASA development in the early space days, it was developed to provide enough heat to simulate re-entry and the heat that would be generated. This heat is beyond that of normal gasifiers and make considerable difference in that it actually disintegrates the waste down to the molecular level, this avoids tars and toxic fly ash, which would require secondary treatment to remove.

The picture shows the main advantages of W2H2 over Electrolysis, the plant in design produce three time the amount of hydrogen that the largest electrolyzer plants in existence. There is a second plant in N California that will follow the same design but will produce liquid hydrogen. These plants are utilizing a single plasma gasifier and the design of a plant using three plasma gasifiers in ongoing presently, which will obviously mean much larger hydrogen production units will be available. The waste can be from multiple sources, the first one is from non-recyclable paper, the second from forest floor clearing, basically wood chips as a feedstock.

How much of the world's need for hydrogen could be produced from the waste available?

the good thing about the plasma technology I mentioned above is that, the backend after the plasma gasifier, is exactly the same as used in steam methane reformer hydrogen production in all refineries today. However, you can substitute the backend and utilize a methanation process, which will produce GNG (Green Natural Gas) that can easily be tied into existing gas networks, this is also gaining traction in terms of real interest from several key players. This means no burner change out, no transportation costs and reduces the carbon footprint significantly.

Additionally, I would point out that I was instrumental in developing the signed contract for the hydrogen offtake agreement, which is take or pay, with two major Oil & Gas players, therefore the whole life cycle development has been agreed but FID (Final Investment Decision) will be required by the investors after the initial design & cost basis is agreed.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 23, 2022 5:39 pm

How much of the world's need for hydrogen could be produced from the waste available?

Potentially all of it, however I don't see that happening, the problem with the hydrogen needs forecast today is that I believe it's much smaller than it will be in 5/10 years from now. I see a complete mix of hydrogen production for decades to come, Gray hydrogen from basic SMR as of today, to substitute for one average refinery you will need ~14 of the plasma gasifiers, which means large costs. Therefore, I see any new refinery designs, I expect very few, could employ W2H2, we will see more electrolyzers employed as they are the proven Green hydrogen producers of today Once the W2H2 plants are in operation and prove themselves, say 3- 5 years from now I see an exponential growth of this production technique and less and less electrolyzer projects from say ~2030.

for anyone interest the picture shows the H2 Economy with supply and demand, that helps how development will grow. One of the companies I'm working with have developed SMR's and have the first USA approval for construction of 12 SMR's in a cluster to provide nuclear energy to several states, 3 I believe. I feel this will also be a game changer in combating GW for the future and reducing carbon usage dramatically.

Same company has Carbon Capture technology, which is being introduced to numerous process, including Grey Hydrogen production that will change it to Blue hydrogen with far less carbon, however I feel only carbon penalties and credits will drive the implementation in this scheme, don't see many if any going that route of their own accord.