IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Hydrogen Fuel Supplies?
Biker1
post Dec 14 2016, 08:49 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 14 2016, 09:46 PM) *
Those are not my words; however, the point is, ~95% of hydrogen gas is manufactured with lecky manufactured by burning fossil fuel in a way that is more polluting than driving combustion engined cars.

And used for blast furnaces and converters to make the steel.
Oh, and the oil to make the plastic.
If you care that much don't own / drive a car.
Like I said, there is always an environmental price to pay for energy.
(I wonder when we will get hydrogen powered heating and cooking?)
Hydrogen powered trains!!!! I'm liking it already!!!! biggrin.gif
We could probably get them quicker than the time it is taking NR to electrify!! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Dec 14 2016, 10:29 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,847
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



There simply ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Dec 14 2016, 11:29 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 495
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 14 2016, 08:49 PM) *
And used for blast furnaces and converters to make the steel.
Oh, and the oil to make the plastic.
If you care that much don't own / drive a car.
Like I said, there is always an environmental price to pay for energy.
(I wonder when we will get hydrogen powered heating and cooking?)
Hydrogen powered trains!!!! I'm liking it already!!!! biggrin.gif
We could probably get them quicker than the time it is taking NR to electrify!! rolleyes.gif


Yes, but plastics can be recycled or be made of bioplastic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Dec 14 2016, 11:30 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 495
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 14 2016, 08:47 PM) *
Would you like a forest of wind turbines or acres of solar panels near your house?
The amount of these needed to substitute the fossil fuel burning power generation that we currently rely on is massive!
If the wind blows or the sun shines!!


I have no objections whatsoever to the proliferation or renewable energy sources or nuclear power either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Dec 15 2016, 12:45 AM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,847
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



Looks like London isn't banning diesels anytime soon, but, will enforce higher charges for diesels to enter London. So people will continue to die, but, more money for the Lord mayor's show. Sound familiar?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Dec 15 2016, 01:21 AM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,009
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 15 2016, 12:30 AM) *
I have no objections whatsoever to the proliferation or renewable energy sources or nuclear power either.

Nuclear, its the fuel of the future! Leave all the problems it might cause for the younger generation to solve, apparently they know everything so it shouldn't be a problem for them, should it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Dec 15 2016, 09:27 AM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 15 2016, 12:29 AM) *
Yes, but plastics can be recycled or be made of bioplastic.

Oh sorry, I was unaware that the palstics used in car manufacture we recycled or bioplastic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Dec 15 2016, 09:28 AM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 15 2016, 12:30 AM) *
I have no objections whatsoever to the proliferation or renewable energy sources.

I think you may be in a minority there.
Yet again I stand to be corrected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Dec 15 2016, 09:44 AM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Dec 14 2016, 06:05 PM) *
If you or indeed any right minded government was truly interested in the longevity of its population they would ban tobacco, alcohol and fast food. Everything else pails into insignificance. It beggars belief that this whole demonization of diesel originates from a country whose number one priority seems to be to maintain the right to own as many guns as possible and then go on the rampage with them.

From BBC News:
QUOTE
The leaders of four major global cities say they will stop the use of all diesel-powered cars and trucks by the middle of the next decade.
The mayors of Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens say they are implementing the ban to improve air quality.

Unless that's Paris, Texas etc., I don't see the US involved here. Anyway, when Trump takes office he is going to actively promote more use of coal as a fuel, or so he says. He is hardly likely to "demonise" diesel - after all, it's produced by his oil baron friends.

Removal of diesel is one less problem we have to face. Small steps, maybe, but it all helps. Meanwhile if people stopped buying diesel cars it would help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Dec 15 2016, 10:19 AM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 15 2016, 10:44 AM) *
Removal of diesel is one less problem we have to face. Small steps, maybe, but it all helps. Meanwhile if people stopped buying diesel cars it would help.

And stop buying goods from supermarkets that use diesel lorries for deliveries, and stop using diesel trains.
And cruise liners, and container ships.
You post as if petrol vehicles breath out fresh air!
Sorry to be cynical here but people seem to want the best of both worlds.
A nice comfortable modern lifestyle but not pay the environmental price?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Dec 16 2016, 12:09 AM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,771
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 15 2016, 10:19 AM) *
And stop buying goods from supermarkets that use diesel lorries for deliveries, and stop using diesel trains.
And cruise liners, and container ships.
You post as if petrol vehicles breath out fresh air!
Sorry to be cynical here but people seem to want the best of both worlds.
A nice comfortable modern lifestyle but not pay the environmental price?

..and let's not forget the environmental impact every time a plane jets us off somewhere nice. We all like to go on holiday don't we?


Rather than just pretend it's nasty diesel cars clogging up your air passages lets calculate CO2 emissions from fuel consumption per flight.

A Boeing 737-400 jet is typically used for short international flights.

For a distance of 926 km the amount of fuel used is estimated to be 3.61 tonnes, including taxiing, take-off, cruising and landing.

Using a seating capacity of 164 and an average seat occupancy (or 'load factor') of 65%, this gives a fuel use of 36.6g per passenger km.

CO2 emissions from aviation fuel are 3.15 grams per gram of fuel, which gives CO2 emissions from a Boeing 737-400 of 115 g per passenger km.

At a cruising speed of 780 km per hour, this is equivalent to 90 kg CO2 per hour.

The corresponding figures for a Boeing 747-400 (used for long distance international flights) are:
Distance: 5556 km
Fuel used: 59.6 tonnes
Seats: 416
Seat occupancy: 80%
Fuel use: 32.2 g per passenger km
CO2 emissions: 101 g per passenger km
Cruising speed: 910 km per hour
CO2 emissions: 92 kg CO2 per hour

So for both aircraft, the emissions are around 90 kg CO2 per hour.

These CO2 emissions are generally into the high atmosphere, and this is thought to have a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 released at sea level. The emissions are therefore adjusted by multiplication by a factor of 2.00 (see 'Radiative forcing' below) to give 180 kg CO2 equivalent per hour.

Further allowance is needed for fossil fuel energy used in :
• extraction and transport of crude oil
• inefficiencies in refineries (around 7%)
• aircraft manufacture and maintenance, and staff training
• airport construction, maintenance, heating, lighting etc.

The CO2 emissions are therefore rounded up and the Carbon Independent calculator takes a values of 250 kg i.e. ¼ tonne CO2 equivalent per hour flying.

And there are planes taking off and landing every second of the day...

(source: http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_aviation.html )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Dec 16 2016, 08:35 AM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (spartacus @ Dec 16 2016, 01:09 AM) *
..and let's not forget the environmental impact every time a plane jets us off somewhere nice. We all like to go on holiday don't we?


Rather than just pretend it's nasty diesel cars clogging up your air passages lets calculate CO2 emissions from fuel consumption per flight.

A Boeing 737-400 jet is typically used for short international flights.

For a distance of 926 km the amount of fuel used is estimated to be 3.61 tonnes, including taxiing, take-off, cruising and landing.

Using a seating capacity of 164 and an average seat occupancy (or 'load factor') of 65%, this gives a fuel use of 36.6g per passenger km.

CO2 emissions from aviation fuel are 3.15 grams per gram of fuel, which gives CO2 emissions from a Boeing 737-400 of 115 g per passenger km.

At a cruising speed of 780 km per hour, this is equivalent to 90 kg CO2 per hour.

The corresponding figures for a Boeing 747-400 (used for long distance international flights) are:
Distance: 5556 km
Fuel used: 59.6 tonnes
Seats: 416
Seat occupancy: 80%
Fuel use: 32.2 g per passenger km
CO2 emissions: 101 g per passenger km
Cruising speed: 910 km per hour
CO2 emissions: 92 kg CO2 per hour

So for both aircraft, the emissions are around 90 kg CO2 per hour.

These CO2 emissions are generally into the high atmosphere, and this is thought to have a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 released at sea level. The emissions are therefore adjusted by multiplication by a factor of 2.00 (see 'Radiative forcing' below) to give 180 kg CO2 equivalent per hour.

Further allowance is needed for fossil fuel energy used in :
• extraction and transport of crude oil
• inefficiencies in refineries (around 7%)
• aircraft manufacture and maintenance, and staff training
• airport construction, maintenance, heating, lighting etc.

The CO2 emissions are therefore rounded up and the Carbon Independent calculator takes a values of 250 kg i.e. ¼ tonne CO2 equivalent per hour flying.

And there are planes taking off and landing every second of the day...

(source: http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_aviation.html )

Thanks Sparty. Nice one.
Anyway, ignore that and lets get that 3rd runway built at Heathrow shall we?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Dec 16 2016, 09:29 AM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,964
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (spartacus @ Dec 14 2016, 12:13 AM) *
Brave you. We need pioneers such as you to Beta test this technology for us all. Personally, the idea of paying £65k on a car is ridiculous. Especially when you are in effect carrying a blast bomb in the boot with 5kg of hydrogen stored in a tank at a pressure of 10,000psi. Still, if it wasn't for the likes of you we'd still be riding round on horses.



Or like carrying around battery acid.

Hydrogen cars are the answer.

Battery powered car are a pathetic, poor, short-term workaround.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Dec 16 2016, 10:37 AM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



OK, maybe I was being a bit naïve about removing diesel cars, but don't let's confuse their toxic emissions (which is what I was talking about) with CO2. CO2 is a major problem for the environment of course, but is not itself toxic.

QUOTE
You post as if petrol vehicles breath out fresh air!

No I don't, but their emissions are far less harmful. I suggest you take a look at this article:

"Diesel exhaust is a Group 1 carcinogen, which causes lung cancer and has a positive association with bladder cancer. It contains several substances that are also listed individually as human carcinogens by the IARC."

"The primary products of petroleum fuel combustion are carbon dioxide, water, and nitrogen."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Dec 16 2016, 01:09 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 16 2016, 11:37 AM) *
No I don't, but their emissions are far less harmful.

Composition of exhaust emissions of petrol engines...

71% Nitrogen
14% Carbon Dioxide
13% Water
1 - 2% Other consisting of ( in descending order)....

Mainly Carbon Monoxide Plus..
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides

Composition of exhaust emissions of diesel engines....

67% Nitrogen
12% Carbon Dioxide
11% Water
10% Oxygen
0.3% Other consisting of (in descending order)....

Mainly Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Sulphur Dioxide
Particulate matter
Hydrocarbons
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Dec 16 2016, 02:14 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



OK you win. I suggest you email the mayors of Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens to warn them they are wasting their time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Dec 16 2016, 02:27 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,009
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



Its a knee jerk reaction to satisfy God knows who. If the want to clean up inner city pollution, ban taxis, buses and trucks that fail euro 5 emission levels.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Dec 16 2016, 05:54 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 16 2016, 03:14 PM) *
OK you win. I suggest you email the mayors of Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens to warn them they are wasting their time.

I think I may be wasting my time doing that eh? wink.gif
To be honest I am as concerned about the environment / air pollution as the next man ( for example I was anti Western By-Pass) but it needs a concerted effort on behalf of all to do that.
It seems to me that most want to reduce emissions, but only if it suits.
Any reduction in lifestyle quality such as taking less or no holidays abroad or reducing our appetite for imported food seems to take second place.
Also, with an ever increasing world population which seems unstoppable (until Nature or Trump does it for us) the problem can only get worse!
I'll leave it there.
Merry Christmas! tongue.gif biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 16 2016, 07:45 PM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,298
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (motormad @ Dec 16 2016, 09:29 AM) *
Or like carrying around battery acid.

Hydrogen cars are the answer.

Battery powered car are a pathetic, poor, short-term workaround.

Hydrogen cars are pretty much the same as battery cars with the electrical energy generated in a chemical cell with the only distinction being the chemistry. If the weight and cost of re-chargable batteries came down it would make battery cars a good choice as it's easier to get electricity to a filling station than it is hydrogen.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Dec 17 2016, 07:36 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 16 2016, 05:54 PM) *
I think I may be wasting my time doing that eh? wink.gif
To be honest I am as concerned about the environment / air pollution as the next man ( for example I was anti Western By-Pass) but it needs a concerted effort on behalf of all to do that.
It seems to me that most want to reduce emissions, but only if it suits.
Any reduction in lifestyle quality such as taking less or no holidays abroad or reducing our appetite for imported food seems to take second place.
Also, with an ever increasing world population which seems unstoppable (until Nature or Trump does it for us) the problem can only get worse!
I'll leave it there.
Merry Christmas! tongue.gif biggrin.gif

Fewer? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th June 2017 - 02:03 PM