We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Hydrogen is generally accepted as "a way forward".
But huge amounts of e' are needed.
Forgive me for writing this again, but we should each of us, write to the nearest Labour politician (since Labour is hesitating over its £28M Green pledge) in support of more generation/transmission - not tax breaks.
Writing here is no use ;)
Shell planned to use PEM for H2 in their German plant. But cost of industrial electricity has gone up 5 x since 2021. That would presumably account for not taking on the (2021) planned electrolysers. It is difficult to see how this impediment will end.
Regarding a Labour Govt, presumably Milliband -> Climate Minister. That is why instead of people here comfortably turning over the News, it might just help a little if they were to write to him, "demanding" money be spent on Windmills (and not the Don Quixote sort). It might not be a waste of time.
Debate. Yet has anyone written to Ed Milliband? He has always tended to champion non-CO2 power. He will be in Govt in near future. (Obviously, H2 power is almost pointless till we get non-CO2 e')
We should get a consensus here to maximise points. Then press at least Miliband. numbers = Votes.
I nearly excluded the volcanic injection in my note. But in general, CCS is a costly lie (IMO). Trouble with trees is that they too decay. No net gain unless they are bigger, which of course is possible.
CH4: In cows, sheep and CH4, some good people sadly growing seaweed which, fed, can reduce output by ~15% max. But the converting enzyme is blocked ~ 30% with a simple inhibitor (Max Planck Institute). Will it catch on?
Do you accept CCS could work? I think its a big lie. You can put in the numbers but how can you prove it doesn't leak. You just would never know. You know it's water soluble, much more permeable than CH4.
The lobbying power of companies is well known. Orwellian.
Much carbon burned to push it out of sight. Better spend the money elsewhere.
Impressed by Aberdeen
https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/net-zero-aberdeen/h2-aberdeen-hydrogen-here/projects-h2-aberdeen
Actually getting there.
(Of note, I raised this Q about 5 years ago, here. It was rather obvious). But liquid H2 is said to cost ~$14/kg at the loading point (Dept of Energy figure). Jet fuel is a fraction of this cost.
The nice thing is that tho' liquifying H2 is inefficient, at least storing it is quite easy owing to its strange physics. It can be stored cold and compressed within achievable limits. But still v.cold, and moderate pressurised, unlike fossil fuel.
However, a H2 plane would be much lighter and that would be a huge advantage. More efficient.
Cost is an essential matter. Long term, it is determined by efficiency. Crazy to try to argue otherwise. (And of course you can say a piston engine at traffic lights is inefficient, or in ideal circumstances, ~40% efficient.)
I give up.
Making liquid H2 is about 55% efficient at present (energy at start to energy at finish). Linde looking for 65% efficient. ie not v. easy for planes. One advantage when it happens is lightness compared to Jet fuel.
(don't know what happened there!)
Linde are trying improve the efficiency of liquifaction and foresee about H2 energy equivalence of
Briefly considered for runway tractors but not at scale yet..As for planes, you would almost certainy need liquifaction of H2 and that is a whole different ball game. Much harder than air or CO2. Linde are trying improve the efficiency of liquifaction and foresee about H2
Ha, Bilbo: "Motive is gone, good riddance" exactly my words earlier. But it was his history that frightened me. Absolute crook. Absolute "type" who wrecks a company but gets his cash (simple answer for Lotus; likewise Williams (F1) Engineering, then ITM. Thankfully not)
Sales: good detail. Assuming ITM has a product, the solar rich Australia has been talking H2 for some ten years. But ITM seems uninterested. I find that crazy. Its a huge opportunity wasted.
Hybrid planes. These are big deals. Using turbojets for power (quite efficient). But I like the idea for cars, at least for the immediate future. IC vehicles belch gases at starting, but hybrids do not.
Just on our baby, if it was flourishing (is it? Or is it not? I can't tell), a P/E of 20 might be acceptable. But with >600M shares out, you'd need about £30,000,000 p.a. revenue for a £1.00 price. It's hard to see this with what I read.
Dennis surely is driving things along (??).
"Basically another Thick Liz"
How do these people make it? Part of the answer is that by dissolving the Civil Service standards, getting advice from "consultants", these people have no competition.
On a separate note, I was thinking about electric power in aircraft. You need 100% power for take off, but only 60% for flight. So a small battery (weak point, even if solid state ones become available) would do if kept charged with a 60% power piston engine. Also, if an IC engine fails, you die. But if you have a battery, and the engine fails, you are OK.
In short, I like hybrids even if the word sounds ugly.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA. It is unclear where the H2 will come from. I have in the past written, visited, ITM to say SA is fertile ground but I am brushed off. Frankly, I was disgusted (pre Dennis).
There has been SA Govt contact with Linde but there is never any definite word. There is a team of SA bureaucrats "on the job" but I am sceptical. I get the impression that they don't know how much electric power they will need. The Premier talks optimistically but clearly doesn't understand details.
IMHO, they first need to supply the Steel Works. These produce bit more than One million tonnes steel p.a. To reduce the oxide they need only 3 MW supply each day if they ran 24 h, 365 days p.a.
Their latest wind farm would cover this.
But overall, there is a huge dismay by manufacturers at e' cost.
One problem is storage - masses of solar power but when and where need is least! You need the e' where the distribution power lines start. This is not ideal for wind power. All sounds easy till you try to put it together. One other problem is, tho' lots of space (bigger area than France), someone always claims "it's his".
Yes, don't quite understand.
South Australia is begging to go, much hype (https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/) but SA doesn't realise how much it will cost. If you use solar (cheapest), it probably works 1/3 the day. But wind-power (there's plenty) is astronomical in cost. A big turbine alone would need a hundred million pounds equivalent. However, using solar, they could get going to process steel - which is what they want to start with.
If Dennis is watching, "You'd be welcomed with open arms". (Over many years, I have written to ITM, saying "Learn how to sell". To no avail.)
You are right :)
Fair point, BB. I think I am wrong. Yes, the fuel cells. It would be silly to try to compete.
Still, I wonder if a small **practical ** team should be working on them. (When I first "invested" - Ho Ho - in ITM, about twenty years ago now, it was fuel cells they were planing to make. I expect you recall).