Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Hydrogen Based Fuel In 3-5 Years- 90P A G A L L O N


Recommended Posts

I have been reading about this over the weekend. It's all rather interesting. LENR could be key to low cost, low risk nuclear power generation.

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say - we won't have to wait long to find out, as their commercial delivery dates are within 1 year. If it works, it could be the start of a revolution in power generation.

I just wish they could just use the steam produced to generate electricity to run the process..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Its just gone mainstream (not the DM)--inventors being advised to refrain from hill walking holidays this year:

http://www.rosewolkins.com/IDXDetail.aspx?mlsnum=100063824&city=Julian&page=1&mlstableid=SDMLSRES&sp=y&segmentid=3664508&uid=77533&htmlfile=1047818.html

19p a litre 'petrol' in development

A British company has invented artificial petrol that emits no greenhouse gases and could cost as little as 19p per litre at the pumps.
Cella Energy, the Oxfordshire-based firm that is developing the fuel, uses hydrogen, which is currently much cheaper than oil.
The first road tests of the as yet unnamed fuel are scheduled to take place next year. If everything goes to plan, then the miracle 'petrol' could be available in three to five years....
Though a figure of 19p per litre has been suggested, it is expected that the motorist would pay around
60p per litre with the addition of Government fuel tax.

And big oil (Shell, Total, BP) are going to allow this shit? I don't think sooooooooooooooo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear isn't very cheap. Coal and gas is certainly cheaper else why does the world have some 400GW nuclear (mostly state experiments and statements of power) but about 5x as much coal/gas fired stations?

However nuclear could be cheaper if the world embraced it.

you are mistaken ....

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.PDF

check tables 3.13 and 3.14

nuclear is the cheapest or very close

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are mistaken ....

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.PDF

check tables 3.13 and 3.14

nuclear is the cheapest or very close

With the regulations and policies in place ATM nuclear certainly isn’t cheaper than gas or coal.

If you still believe it to be so just ask yourself why the world is building more GW of coal and gas fired stations than they are nuclear powered?

However it probably does have the potential to be cheaper than coal or gas if the world embraced the technology and went on a mass build. I believe if the world aimed to build 1000 reactors then it could be done cheaper than coal/gas. Reactors probably don’t even need to get much cheaper instead they need to build them faster which is just experience and practise.

China could build 200-500 reactors but other than them there is no country which has the will or desire.

Edited by cells
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the regulations and policies in place ATM nuclear certainly isn't cheaper than gas or coal.

If you still believe it to be so just ask yourself why the world is building more GW of coal and gas fired stations than they are nuclear powered?

However it probably does have the potential to be cheaper than coal or gas if the world embraced the technology and went on a mass build. I believe if the world aimed to build 1000 reactors then it could be done cheaper than coal/gas. Reactors probably don't even need to get much cheaper instead they need to build them faster which is just experience and practise.

China could build 200-500 reactors but other than them there is no country which has the will or desire.

interestingly this has been solved in UK with EDF quite quickly ...

or extending the lifespan of the power stations in Germany ...

if there is a political will it will just happen ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

interestingly this has been solved in UK with EDF quite quickly ...

or extending the lifespan of the power stations in Germany ...

if there is a political will it will just happen ....

I don’t think you can compare anything built back in the days of state utilities and call them profitable or unprofitable as your not comparing like with like.

What is clear is the reactors built in Finland have not been a good success. Long delays and cost overruns. Likewise in the UK they are begging for indirect subsidies.

Over the next 10 years more coal/gas will be built than nuclear, surely that should be convincing enough.

I’m not against nuclear but to beat gas/coal they need to reduce build times dramatically and costs a little less. The world could build 1000 reactors cheaper than coal/gas equivalents however individual countries like say the uk building 5 nukes would probably cost more than building a gas fired unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish they could just use the steam produced to generate electricity to run the process..

They claim to have done that with them too, but say they are safer (read: more stable) with an external source. If they're being genuine in their claims, I would have thought the technology would evolve over time to do more with less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can compare anything built back in the days of state utilities and call them profitable or unprofitable as your not comparing like with like.

What is clear is the reactors built in Finland have not been a good success. Long delays and cost overruns. Likewise in the UK they are begging for indirect subsidies.

Over the next 10 years more coal/gas will be built than nuclear, surely that should be convincing enough.

I'm not against nuclear but to beat gas/coal they need to reduce build times dramatically and costs a little less. The world could build 1000 reactors cheaper than coal/gas equivalents however individual countries like say the uk building 5 nukes would probably cost more than building a gas fired unit.

French have enough skills and resources building 5 to 10 reactors concurrently. Also if you go for a standardised design it can be easily scaled up ...

Russians have also enough skills and resources ...

It is not a big problem to scale it up as all you need is relatively small. Just one bigger building and one big reactor vessel and 2 steam turbines ....

Main problem in Finland is that it is a new design .... EPR .. European Pressurized Reactor ... French and German design ... 2 vessels in Finland and 2 in France ... when they get it right (2013) they can build another one for the half of costs ....

If we go for some standardized design it will be cheaper, smoother and faster ...

We just need a bigger European demand so the businesses like EDF can invest and plan .... right now it is UK, France and Germany soon

I would not worry here ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor

In July 2008 the French President announced a second EPR would be built in France due to high oil and gas prices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They claim to have done that with them too, but say they are safer (read: more stable) with an external source. If they're being genuine in their claims, I would have thought the technology would evolve over time to do more with less.

Let's put it like this: I would be very happy if they were both genuine and correct, as would any sane person.

But as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.. or at least in the case a working machine. Since they are not claiming to directly violate physical law, their claims cannot be instantly dismissed, but that does not mean uncritical acceptance either..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's put it like this: I would be very happy if they were both genuine and correct, as would any sane person.

But as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.. or at least in the case a working machine. Since they are not claiming to directly violate physical law, their claims cannot be instantly dismissed, but that does not mean uncritical acceptance either..

Very true - I'll be monitoring their progress with sceptical interest. Hope springs eternal and all that, though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar power isn't free. Apart from the fact that it costs money, there is an opportunity cost from not using the electricity directly.

It might not be free in the sense of cost but it is free in the sense of "ly available"

tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.