Hydrogen Baby!

[fellow]

10 minutes ago, TerryBoi said:

This is why socialists are so ineffective.

What do you think the H in H20 stands for dude?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire Universe.

🤣

 

How do you get the hydrogen out of the water? The hydrogen in water has already been combusted.

Edited February 22, 2023 by fellow

[TheResponsibleHouseBuyer]

3 minutes ago, fellow said:

How do you get the hydrogen out of the water? The hydrogen in water has already been combusted.

I thought you need to use an insane amounts of energy to extract the hydrogen element. The energy i guess will need to come from fossil fuels, until we establish a reliable cleaner source???

[fellow]

1 minute ago, TheResponsibleHouseBuyer said:

I thought you need to use an insane amounts of energy to extract the hydrogen element. The energy i guess will need to come from fossil fuels, until we establish a reliable cleaner source???

Yep, and the rest of the hydrogen in the universe is tied up inside stars so good luck extracting that.

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

Solar is a great way to produce hydrogen, especially in the summer months when we generate more electricity than we can use during the day. Much cleaner than storing it in lithium batteries and better long term storage.

[kzb]

58 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It's not that expensive. BA already offer both Carbon Offset and Carbon Removal and even the 100% removal option only adds about 10% to a business class flight to New York

CO₂LLABORATE carbon calculator (chooose.today)

At my company, after a bit of back and forth debate, we agreed on a 50% Offset 50 Removal which adds around £250 on my tranatlantic flights and £30 on the hops to Berlin.   

 

Yes and this is exactly what needs to be stopped if we genuinely want to reduce emissions.

It's probably even worse than Drax burning wood pellets and saying it is carbon neutral.

These offsets are basically a contribution to a religion, nothing else.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

22 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes and this is exactly what needs to be stopped if we genuinely want to reduce emissions.

It's probably even worse than Drax burning wood pellets and saying it is carbon neutral.

These offsets are basically a contribution to a religion, nothing else.

You know this from reviewing BA's schemes? Or are you again giving us the benefit of your uninformed opinions? 

 

[AThirdWay]

2 hours ago, msi said:

Volumes.  Not insurmountable, but needs Governmental, if not pan Governmental backing.

 

Lucky we have so many friends across the continent and world.

 

Oh wait

Baby steps, but I take your point re government support tho.

[70PC]

1 hour ago, Sackboii said:

As with anything, there are lots of well established process and functional safety standards to mitigate such risks, such as the ATEX directive.

Definitely true but lorries move around. ATEX equipment is expensive. 

[AThirdWay]

2 hours ago, TerryBoi said:

This is why socialists are so ineffective.

What do you think the H in H20 stands for dude?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire Universe.

🤣

 

🔔End.

[70PC]

1 hour ago, fellow said:

How do you get the hydrogen out of the water? The hydrogen in water has already been combusted.

Electrolysis or extreme temperatures like Fukushima

[bearishonhouses]

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It's not that expensive. BA already offer both Carbon Offset and Carbon Removal and even the 100% removal option only adds about 10% to a business class flight to New York

CO₂LLABORATE carbon calculator (chooose.today)

At my company, after a bit of back and forth debate, we agreed on a 50% Offset 50 Removal which adds around £250 on my tranatlantic flights and £30 on the hops to Berlin.   

 

I am not persuaded that 'offset' is anything other than a scam - made to enable greenwashing and generate jobs for the firms issuing certificates. Grauniad reports more than 90% of projects provide no real benefit (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe) 

paying extra for using fuel produced from renewable resources does seem a valid approach. 

 

 

[Sackboii]

33 minutes ago, 70PC said:

Definitely true but lorries move around. ATEX equipment is expensive. 

There are a whole different set of harmonised standards for vehicles.

[Confusion of VIs]

7 minutes ago, bearishonhouses said:

I am not persuaded that 'offset' is anything other than a scam - made to enable greenwashing and generate jobs for the firms issuing certificates. Grauniad reports more than 90% of projects provide no real benefit (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe) 

paying extra for using fuel produced from renewable resources does seem a valid approach. 

 

 

That guardian article is based on years old data but keeps getting re-published every few months.

BA don't get involved in the sort of scheme it is refering to (paying people not to do something they weren't going to do anyway) and actually list the schemes they are involved in on their website.

Their largest spend is on sustainable aviation fuel which is added into their fuel. 

 

[Lord D'arcy Pew]

3 hours ago, fellow said:

H2O = hydrogen and oxygen. Where does the chlorine come from?

 

[Greater Fool]

3 hours ago, TerryBoi said:

This is why socialists are so ineffective.

What do you think the H in H20 stands for dude?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire Universe.

🤣

 

The hydrogen atoms are always joined to another pesky atom though. They don't exist on their own out in the universe, the only way to get some nice hydrogen atoms is to apply energy to break the bonds.

[70PC]

56 minutes ago, Sackboii said:

There are a whole different set of harmonised standards for vehicles.

It is more about infrastructure rather than the vehicles themselves. Hydrogen leaks in the open air are no big deal. Hydrogen leaks in a building is different.   

[Sackboii]

15 minutes ago, 70PC said:

It is more about infrastructure rather than the vehicles themselves. Hydrogen leaks in the open air are no big deal. Hydrogen leaks in a building is different.   

..which is why I’d previously stated there are lots of well established process and functional safety standards to mitigate such risks, such as the ATEX directive.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

5 hours ago, 70PC said:

The other question is how to keep it. Hydrogen is light and has a very low ignition energy. The high flame speed means also means it is easy to detonate. A leaking lorry parked in a warehouse overnight could fill the overhead space. The first person arriving in the morning switches on a light and boom. No more warehouse. 

 

Though in a proper pressure system, with fuel cells, I'd say it is pretty safe.

Also this type of recent break through helps:

https://www.h2-view.com/story/university-of-surrey-researchers-make-game-changing-findings-for-hydrogen-production/

I reckon EVs will be dead in 10 years in their batteried form, but will live on with basically the same tech with hydrogen fuel cells, long live the EV.

[Goat]

4 hours ago, TheResponsibleHouseBuyer said:

I thought you need to use an insane amounts of energy to extract the hydrogen element. The energy i guess will need to come from fossil fuels, until we establish a reliable cleaner source???

You could solve the intermittency problem with renewables with this, install 200+ GW of offshore wind power, when the wind blows, and you have excess electricity use that to generate hydrogen, when the wind dies down, and you need the power elsewhere turn it off.

[zugzwang]

2 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 

Though in a proper pressure system, with fuel cells, I'd say it is pretty safe.

Also this type of recent break through helps:

https://www.h2-view.com/story/university-of-surrey-researchers-make-game-changing-findings-for-hydrogen-production/

I reckon EVs will be dead in 10 years in their batteried form, but will live on with basically the same tech with hydrogen fuel cells, long live the EV.

Which is what would have happened had Musk's rotten enterprise not been inflated with cheap debt.

[zugzwang]

47 minutes ago, 70PC said:

It is more about infrastructure rather than the vehicles themselves. Hydrogen leaks in the open air are no big deal. Hydrogen leaks in a building is different.   

Fly away roof, you'll be fine.

 

[kzb]

3 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You know this from reviewing BA's schemes? Or are you again giving us the benefit of your uninformed opinions? 

 

There is not enough spare land suitable in the world.  If there were, we should be using it already without inflating its price with this scam.

[70PC]

1 hour ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Though in a proper pressure system, with fuel cells, I'd say it is pretty safe.

Also this type of recent break through helps:

https://www.h2-view.com/story/university-of-surrey-researchers-make-game-changing-findings-for-hydrogen-production/

I reckon EVs will be dead in 10 years in their batteried form, but will live on with basically the same tech with hydrogen fuel cells, long live the EV.

The hydrogen fuel tank is the bit they need to solve. Hydrogen stores on chemical plants have to be located outside with specified separation distances. Hydrogen use in plants comes with a raft of requirements, walls strengthened with steel panels, blast panels on walls, very high air change rates, separation from other building areas, automation to minimise occupancy etc. 

[70PC]

1 hour ago, Sackboii said:

..which is why I’d previously stated there are lots of well established process and functional safety standards to mitigate such risks, such as the ATEX directive.

Atex relates to the elimination of ignition sources but it does not make an affected area safe. Electrical switches, cable joints, lights, signal boxes, motors fittings etc in a classified area have to be Atex rated. In some cases special flooring is used to dissipate electrical charge and people wear shoes made to dissipate charge. You can't use a computer or mobile unless they are Atex rated. Pouring a powder or rubbing a plastic surface can ignite hydrogen. Some have claimed that a comb through the hair is enough. Hydrogen is extremely dangerous if it gets into the place. Containment or location away from enclosed areas is always the preferred option.  

[Arpeggio]

4 hours ago, 70PC said:

Electrolysis

Yes, interesting. US Patent 4,105,528 (for example).

1 hour ago, 70PC said:

The hydrogen fuel tank is the bit they need to solve. Hydrogen stores on chemical plants have to be located outside with specified separation distances. Hydrogen use in plants comes with a raft of requirements, walls strengthened with steel panels, blast panels on walls, very high air change rates, separation from other building areas, automation to minimise occupancy etc. 

Norwegian shipping company bans electric cars on board classic ferry route https://www.ctif.org/news/norwegian-shipping-company-bans-electric-cars-board-classic-ferry-route

Going forward, electric cars, hybrid cars and also hydrogen cars will not be allowed on board (hydrogen fuel cells).

Edited February 22, 2023 by Arpeggio