But some new nukes ? Can't be bad. Almost one-per-city ?
I'm not a fan of nuclear but I don't mind the idea of numerous smaller ones.
You can bet someone has been Put in that place!
Because there isn't any science that could make hydrogen a viable solution for mass energy generation. Beyond nuclear fusion. Which I am certain he wasn't talking about.
I don't need to see the "detail" of a perpetual motion machine to suspect it may be a crock of shit.
Clearly you know a lot more about this than me. However a cursory Google search brings up a web page from Misubishi
<quote>Competition among developers of the technology is taking place around the world, where engineers are solving a host of issues. At this site, we will focus on hydrogen power generation and how it relates to the future of energy.
[with further articles entitled]March 16, 2019
All eyes are on Hydrogen Energy
Insight of Large-scale hydrogen gas turbine Developer
</quote>As I said, you clearly know more about this than me. So are these people all talking about something else entirely different to what you're talking about ? Or is everything they're saying, all nonsense ?
michael adams
...
It wasn't an accident I mentioned nuclear fusion. All eyes have been on that since before I was born.
I thought we had progressed beyond lots of people wishing for something makes it true ?
It's not that you can't use hydrogen as an energy source. Just that by the time you have, you may as well not have bothered.
The reason there is a lot of reporting on hydrogen is because a lot of other greenwash ideas have proved to be shit and the green lobby desperately needs to reel in new marks.
No one would welcome renewable sustainable energy more than I. But hydrogen ain't it.
Staw man energy you mean ?
Please explain why the Mitsubishi Corporation would be devoting so many resources to research which can never come to fruition or yield any benefits ?
Wouldn't they already have enough more promising projects to be spending their R/D budget on, if that were the case ?
Jethro uk vs the Mitsubishi Corporation. There's only one way to decide...
michael adams
...
Nucleara is not a solution. It is the *only* solution.
And I can assure you if there were something cheap widely available and carbon free they would instantly ban it.
Hydrogen isn't really an energy source. The energy has to come from somewhere else and the hydrogen just provides another way of storing it and moving it around.
John
Your remark might be better directed at the Mitsubishi Corporation whose website I was mererly quoting.
michael adams
...
>
At my PPoE, a B.Sc. was three years. An M.Sc. separate, and another one year.
If you only managed two years, that was a Diploma. One year was a Certificate.
Right now a lot of hydrogen comes from steaming natural gas. Which generates loads of CO2, you may as well burn the methane.
You _can_ make hydrogen by electrolysis. But
- It's inefficient
- the stuff is a B***r to store. It tends to leak
- It's really dangerous. You know what happened to the R101...
- You need something to make loads of electricity. How many solar panels and windmills will we need for that?
Mitsubishi seem to be planning to steam the methane out of natural gas, then capture the CO2. Again, why not just burn it directly?
Andy
I don't think that contacting Mitsubishi will have any useful effect on the discussion here. However, do you agree that what I said is true? Hydrogen is not an energy source, just a way of storing energy and moving it around? (I'm not saying that it is not useful, just that some of the claims being made are wrong.)
John
Not on combustion, obvs. Just a lot on /generation/. And as has been said, if you're getting it from methane, a lot more efficient (and therefore requiring less methane overall), to just burn the methane.
Very woolly. Advertising puff.
Which issues would those be, then - the ones being solved, I mean.
Well they stand to make money out of it, don't they.
You might be able to make some out of surplus wind power, by electrolysis. But the wind is not free, except in the same sense that oil and water are free. You still have to build and service the turbines, which ain't cost free. This is the sort of accounting that says, lets build a power source (at some cost), and then instead of using the energy it generates for industrial or domestic use, use it to make hydrogen - and then pretend that the hydrogen you make, comes at no cost!
This is a bit like one of my nephews - very woke/PC/post-truth, but a bozo. He needed a small laptop to do some work on, but had no money. So he borrowed it from the bank, spent it on the laptop, got on with the work. Fine so far. He finished the work (but was still paying off the loan). He then sold the laptop, pocketed the proceeds, and cancelled the direct debit for the loan repayments. He couldn't understand why the bank took a dim view of this - after all, he no longer had the laptop, so why should he be paying for it?
I'm afraid that too many people, in looking at this power business, are using my nephew's argument.
Did you actually read my post before selecting that passage ?
Below is the disclaimer which I wrote at the top of that post, which you rather conveniently snipped, and subsequently appear to have forgotten
Just as you attempted to attribute the quotati> Clearly you know a lot more about this than me. However a cursory
Now which word or words in the ten word sentence there
" Clearly you know a lot more about this than me"
are you having the greatest difficulty with ?
michael adams
... .
Except in fusion reactions...
What happpened to the R101 was nothing to do with its hydrogen. Unlike the Hindenburg...
Cant claim carbon credits if you do
What does worry me about all nuclear plants though, is what do you do with the bits that reach end of life which will be radioactive for many hundreds of years? Brian
Still at least we're no longer being ruled by unelected officials in Brussels,
And while you not like Boris Johnson's live-in girlfriend and mother of his latest love child, she's the one, we the voters chose, over that misery guts Cummings.
This is democracy in action and why you all voted Leave.
michael adams
....
And just like them, "hydrogen" as a solution seems "about 10 years away".
As indeed fusion was in the 1960s.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.