Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Ah, yeah, California. The home of prudent and cost-efficient energy management.
So what is the source-to-pump cost of these filling stations?
No idea. Expensive I should imagine, which all emerging technologies tend to be.
The case against nuclear power - does it stack up?
- Thread starter platinumsage
- Start date
No idea. Expensive I should imagine, which all emerging technologies tend to be.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
This is part of the problem ie. that hydrogen is behind the development curve and hence very expensive. It has various other problems too, but this can kill superior technologies by itself.
I can see hydrogen playing a part in making renewables more viable - the example you gave about making use of unpredictable over-supply is a good one. I’d be willing to bet heavily against anything but a tiny minority of new cars being hydrogen-powered in 10 years, though.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
And still will be 20 years away in 20 years time.
From what I gather (I'm no expert) at the moment the fusion reactions achieved consume more juice than they provide. Hydrogen is the answer.
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It could however be quite a useful way of storing energy, assuming of course that we had some plentiful and dependable source of electrical energy in order to run the required electrolysis of water... such as nuclear fusion.
In the meantime, nuclear fission is a proven technology that does not generate CO2 as part of its crucial function.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Hydrogen is considered attractive because there has long been a sense that some form of liquid fuel will need to be part of the mix in future.
As well as the practical problems with hydrogen, its reputation suffers from past hype and bullshit about the 'hydrogen economy'. This includes stuff in the 1970s when battery technology wasnt very good, when the future for nuclear power was considered more rosy than its since become, and when political & pricing shocks in regards fossil fuels forced a lot of hype onto the agenda without actually having to live up to any of it in the short-medium term.
There have also been further periods of hydrogen hype this century which didnt really live up to expectations at the time, eg the period a while ago when fuel cells were heavily hyped including in the consumer gadgets arena, but what we ended up with instead was far more lithium batteries with somewhat better specs than batteries of the past.
I'm wary of the past hype but at this stage I rule nothing out. I expect future solutions involve a big mix of many different things on many fronts, including reductions on the demand side. Nuclear looks like it will remain part of the medium term mix, but its already clear that things like wind are going to account for a larger chunk of the mix than seemed plausible a few decades ago. And in the very long term I wouldnt bet on nuclear, but that will be beyond my lifetime anyway.
As well as the practical problems with hydrogen, its reputation suffers from past hype and bullshit about the 'hydrogen economy'. This includes stuff in the 1970s when battery technology wasnt very good, when the future for nuclear power was considered more rosy than its since become, and when political & pricing shocks in regards fossil fuels forced a lot of hype onto the agenda without actually having to live up to any of it in the short-medium term.
There have also been further periods of hydrogen hype this century which didnt really live up to expectations at the time, eg the period a while ago when fuel cells were heavily hyped including in the consumer gadgets arena, but what we ended up with instead was far more lithium batteries with somewhat better specs than batteries of the past.
I'm wary of the past hype but at this stage I rule nothing out. I expect future solutions involve a big mix of many different things on many fronts, including reductions on the demand side. Nuclear looks like it will remain part of the medium term mix, but its already clear that things like wind are going to account for a larger chunk of the mix than seemed plausible a few decades ago. And in the very long term I wouldnt bet on nuclear, but that will be beyond my lifetime anyway.
Last edited:
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
It is also so far into the future that you need binoculars to see it.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Hydrogen is a complete bastard to work with. It makes metals brittle, it leaks through almost anything, it has to be stored at very low temperatures or high pressures otherwise it takes up a collosal amount of space. The only real upside is that it's relatively easy to turn into electricity and vice versa. There are better liquid fuels and there are better energy stores.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
It is also so far into the future that you need binoculars to see it.
What is?
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Ammonia is probably a bed storage medium for wind and solar and deffo a better fuel option for ships and perhaps HGV and PSV transport. It’s just not sexy though.It is the answer to our energy needs. It is also something that I'm hearing about more and more. Hydrogen powered ships (that really is a biggie in pollution reduction, at present they burn shit that is so turgid it needs to be heated in order to be pumped), hydrogen powered busses and cars.
I've been an advocate of hydrogen for decades, the world is finally listening.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Refresh my ancient chemistry. What is the reaction?
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Wouldn't hydrogen be better off used as a feedstock for creating easier to handle fuels? I.E. hydrogen + atmospheric carbon = synthetic hydrocarbons.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Probably more efficient to skip the H2 production step and just go CO2 + H2O -> CH + O2 directly.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
newsThe Big Tokamak is always 20 years away, but the rapid development of high-temp superconducters has enabled a whole load of smaller devices. There's now healthy competition (and multiple approaches) between commerical fusion companies. I predict one of them will achieve net power before ITER fuses a single nucleus, and at a considerably lower cost.
The chase for fusion energy
An emerging industry of nuclear-fusion firms promises to have commercial reactors ready in the next decade.www.nature.com
Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.
www.bbc.co.uk
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes I was looking for somewhere to post that. Exciting. I just hope the world leaders don’t decide that means decarbonisation has been solved and wait for that to come on line before doing anything.news
Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.www.bbc.co.uk
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Double what they achieved in 1997, wayhey!
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
fusion timeline by some french guy working on Iter being interviewed on R4 about it: 1st generating plants around 2050ish.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Nobody can really know whether that imagined timetable will stay true or slip. But certainly if its going to be part of the solution, it seems to be a story for the second half of this century at the earliest. Which means it could still be relatively timely in terms of the greatest energy challenges ahead, but I wouldnt be too confident about it. Neither would I give up on it just because its a long hard slog, but I'd still need to keep hold of a plan for circumstances where it never achieves what is needed and we end up having to rely on all the other options instead.
I suppose in so much as there is any sort of overarching plan, its to use one more generation of fission reactors in the meantime and then hope to replace those with fusion. Not clear whether the scale of this new generation of fission will reach what is presently imagined or not, or the extent to which timetables for new fission builds will slip further, and there is always the risk that we are only one big accident away from fission aspirations being partially thwarted.
I suppose in so much as there is any sort of overarching plan, its to use one more generation of fission reactors in the meantime and then hope to replace those with fusion. Not clear whether the scale of this new generation of fission will reach what is presently imagined or not, or the extent to which timetables for new fission builds will slip further, and there is always the risk that we are only one big accident away from fission aspirations being partially thwarted.
Last edited:
RileyOBlimey
Well-Known Member
The very fact we’re in a climate emergency should prohibit building new nuclear power stations. Where are these power stations built? On the coast. What is a major risk of climate change? Rising sea levels. But surely, engineers could deal with a gradual rise! I hear you cry. There is no guarantee sudden huge rise will be averted.
RileyOBlimey
Well-Known Member
…and that date is optimistic.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Hopefully they wont hire Tepco engineers for that task:
"Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami":
Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami | The Ja…
archived 26 Apr 2021 03:19:43 UTC
there's a lot of people in places like Siemens looking at ammonia - it's easy to make fertiliser from, once you've got it in a tank it can be burnt in a controlled manner to power an engine, and there is a process of making it using electricity and a catalyst from air, I believe. So a farm could use a bunch of wind turbines and solar panels to make fuel and feedstock...
8ball
Decolonise colons!
And explosives.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Stored energy innit. Fun fact: There is more energy in a pound of butter than in a pound of C4 plastic explosive. But the explosive can be made to release it at faster than the speed of sound.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
I'll make sure I take my explosives in butter form next time I board a plane
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
I can’t believe it’s not Semtex.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Labour now seem to think so, again.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
One of the many reasons I have always been against nuclear power was the security threat from terrorism. I've now got to add the threat from warfare. I never thought even the military machine would be stupid enough to attack nuclear power stations, especially on your own doorstep. Wrong again.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Except the Russians have attacked them to seize control of them, not to blow them up.
Similar threads
