Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Hydrogen Fuel Supplies?

Posted by: Blake Dec 13 2016, 08:28 PM

As part of my overall commitment to reducing my carbon footprint and moving evermore toward living sustainably, I am looking to buy a hydrogen-powered car like a Toyota Mirai.

Does anyone know any gas stations in West Berkshire that currently supply hydrogen to the consumer?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 13 2016, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 13 2016, 08:28 PM) *
As part of my overall commitment to reducing my carbon footprint and moving evermore toward living sustainably, I am looking to buy a hydrogen-powered car like a Toyota Mirai.

Does anyone know any gas stations in West Berkshire that currently supply hydrogen to the consumer?

I think the nearest is Honda in Swindon.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/honda-opens-new-hydrogen-filling-station-swindon

http://www.netinform.net/H2/H2Stations/H2Stations.aspx?Continent=EU&StationID=-1

"There are only eight hydrogen filling stations open to the public right now. Most of are in the south of the UK, with three in the London area (at Hendon, Teddington and Heathrow airport), another at Honda's factory in Swindon, Wiltshire, and a fourth in Port Talbot in south Wales."

However, bear in mind, these cars won't do much to reduce your carbon footprint at the moment.

http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/144957/what-are-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Blake Dec 14 2016, 08:47 AM

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.


If Toyota has perfected it, we really need not worry.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 14 2016, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 14 2016, 08:47 AM) *
If Toyota has perfected it, we really need not worry.

We'll keep our eyes on the local news to see if they have! However, like I said earlier, it seems this technology isn't eco friendly yet.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 14 2016, 09:47 AM

QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 13 2016, 10:28 PM) *
As part of my overall commitment to reducing my carbon footprint and moving evermore toward living sustainably, I am looking to buy a hydrogen-powered car like a Toyota Mirai.

Does anyone know any gas stations in West Berkshire that currently supply hydrogen to the consumer?

Good for you if that's what it will do but can someone explain how running on hydrogen reduces ones "carbon footprint".
Also wouldn't be keen on driving around with one of the most volatile gases (in liquid form) in the back!.
No worse maybe than driving around with a volatile liquid between ones legs. (Bike!).
Any answers?

Posted by: JeffG Dec 14 2016, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 14 2016, 09:47 AM) *
Good for you if that's what it will do but can someone explain how running on hydrogen reduces ones "carbon footprint".

Petrol and Diesel are hydrocarbons and produce all sorts of noxious gases as well as CO².

Burning Hydrogen just produces water (actually steam):

2H² + O² = 2H²O

(Superscripts should be subscripts of course, but I couldn't find them.)

Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 14 2016, 11:37 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 14 2016, 11:18 AM) *
Petrol and Diesel are hydrocarbons and produce all sorts of noxious gases as well as CO².

Burning Hydrogen just produces water (actually steam):

2H² + O² = 2H²O

(Superscripts should be subscripts of course, but I couldn't find them.)


However, it takes a fair amount of 'dirty' electricity to separate the hydrogen out in the first place.

Mind you, this could be achieved by solar or wind power as it doesn't need to be a constant supply

..and the first super/subscript 2 shouldn't be there. Hydrogen exists as single molecules

4H + O2 = 2H2O

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 14 2016, 12:04 PM

Or use a diesel.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 14 2016, 12:31 PM

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 14 2016, 11:37 AM) *
..and the first super/subscript 2 shouldn't be there. Hydrogen exists as single molecules

4H + O2 = 2H2O

Since when? (And a single atom isn't a molecule.)

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Dec 14 2016, 12:04 PM) *
Or use a diesel.

And kill people as well as damaging the environment?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 14 2016, 12:44 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 14 2016, 11:18 AM) *
Petrol and Diesel are hydrocarbons and produce all sorts of noxious gases as well as CO².

Burning Hydrogen just produces water (actually steam):

2H² + O² = 2H²O

(Superscripts should be subscripts of course, but I couldn't find them.)

According to this article, the electricity required for Hydrogen production is environmentally more destructive than running a car.

"A bigger challenge presents itself when you look at how hydrogen fuel is produced in the first place. Despite its abundance within the universe, hydrogen makes up just one part-per-million of our atmosphere. There’s a huge amount of hydrogen on the surface of the planet, but the majority of this exists in chemical compounds such as water and – ironically – crude oil.

That means it’s necessary to produce hydrogen fuel industrially and, in the commercial world, as much as 95% of all hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.

This leads to a false environmental economy: for a hydrogen fuel cell car to work it’s necessary to take oil, gas or coal, burn them to produce hydrogen, store that hydrogen, then use it to charge a battery, which, finally, powers the car.

Until large-scale hydrogen production becomes environmentally friendly, it makes more sense to either: burn petrol or diesel directly to power the car or use electricity straight from the grid to charge an electric car’s batteries, rather than store the energy as hydrogen in between. The majority of our electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels but, where cars are concerned, this is actually less environmentally harmful and energy intensive than industrially producing hydrogen is"




http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/144957/what-are-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 14 2016, 12:46 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 14 2016, 12:31 PM) *
Since when? (And a single atom isn't a molecule.)

I read that Hydrogen gas (H2) is a molecule.

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 14 2016, 12:31 PM) *
And kill people as well as damaging the environment?

Diesel has a smaller carbon footprint than Hydrogen and petrol cars (but has other hazardous waste of course).


Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 14 2016, 12:48 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 14 2016, 01:31 PM) *
And kill people as well as damaging the environment?

Said he wanted to reduce carbon footprint, diesel does that.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 14 2016, 01:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 14 2016, 12:46 PM) *
I read that Hydrogen gas (H2) is a molecule.

Yes it is. It's two atoms bonded together as a molecule. I was just saying that a single atom isn't a molecule (which is what BerkshireLad said). I only did O level Chemistry, so I'm no expert! However...

On the subject of diesel, carbon footprint or not, it's far more dangerous to humans than petrol - otherwise why would cities be looking to ban it? Hard to achieve in Central London of course, since most of the traffic is buses and taxis.

I read that in Delhi which suffers from major smogs, they are proposing to use retired jet engines mounted on trailers next to coal-fired power stations to blow the gases into the upper atmosphere. Kind of misses the point, I think!

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 14 2016, 02:52 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 14 2016, 02:44 PM) *
According to this article, the electricity required for Hydrogen production is environmentally more destructive than running a car.

"A bigger challenge presents itself when you look at how hydrogen fuel is produced in the first place. Despite its abundance within the universe, hydrogen makes up just one part-per-million of our atmosphere. There’s a huge amount of hydrogen on the surface of the planet, but the majority of this exists in chemical compounds such as water and – ironically – crude oil.

That means it’s necessary to produce hydrogen fuel industrially and, in the commercial world, as much as 95% of all hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.

This leads to a false environmental economy: for a hydrogen fuel cell car to work it’s necessary to take oil, gas or coal, burn them to produce hydrogen, store that hydrogen, then use it to charge a battery, which, finally, powers the car.

Until large-scale hydrogen production becomes environmentally friendly, it makes more sense to either: burn petrol or diesel directly to power the car or use electricity straight from the grid to charge an electric car’s batteries, rather than store the energy as hydrogen in between. The majority of our electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels but, where cars are concerned, this is actually less environmentally harmful and energy intensive than industrially producing hydrogen is"




http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/144957/what-are-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars

That's what I imagined might be the case hence my question.
No matter what source of energy we use there is always a price to pay for the environment.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 14 2016, 06:04 PM

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 14 2016, 11:37 AM) *
However, it takes a fair amount of 'dirty' electricity to separate the hydrogen out in the first place.

Mind you, this could be achieved by solar or wind power as it doesn't need to be a constant supply

..and the first super/subscript 2 shouldn't be there. Hydrogen exists as single molecules

4H + O2 = 2H2O

Hydrogen is so reactive that it dimerises readily as a gas and exists almost exclusively as H2 molecules.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 14 2016, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 14 2016, 02:27 PM) *
On the subject of diesel, carbon footprint or not, it's far more dangerous to humans than petrol - otherwise why would cities be looking to ban it?

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.

"Can we buy nuclear tipped, armour piercing ammo?". "sure why not, its in the Constitution!"

Utter madness and hypocrisy in equal proportion! Makes I laff.

Posted by: Blake Dec 14 2016, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 14 2016, 12:44 PM) *
According to this article, the electricity required for Hydrogen production is environmentally more destructive than running a car.

"A bigger challenge presents itself when you look at how hydrogen fuel is produced in the first place. Despite its abundance within the universe, hydrogen makes up just one part-per-million of our atmosphere. There’s a huge amount of hydrogen on the surface of the planet, but the majority of this exists in chemical compounds such as water and – ironically – crude oil.

That means it’s necessary to produce hydrogen fuel industrially and, in the commercial world, as much as 95% of all hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.

This leads to a false environmental economy: for a hydrogen fuel cell car to work it’s necessary to take oil, gas or coal, burn them to produce hydrogen, store that hydrogen, then use it to charge a battery, which, finally, powers the car.

Until large-scale hydrogen production becomes environmentally friendly, it makes more sense to either: burn petrol or diesel directly to power the car or use electricity straight from the grid to charge an electric car’s batteries, rather than store the energy as hydrogen in between. The majority of our electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels but, where cars are concerned, this is actually less environmentally harmful and energy intensive than industrially producing hydrogen is"




http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/144957/what-are-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars


You say that, but we are gradually phasing out dirty, fossil fuels. With the huge amount of electricity now being generated by wind turbines and solar cells, hydrogen becomes a very desirable fuel and really is the answer to our (green) prayers. Bring it on!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 14 2016, 07:46 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 14 2016, 06:20 PM) *
You say that, but we are gradually phasing out dirty, fossil fuels. With the huge amount of electricity now being generated by wind turbines and solar cells, hydrogen becomes a very desirable fuel and really is the answer to our (green) prayers. Bring it on!

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 14 2016, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Dec 14 2016, 08:20 PM) *
You say that, but we are gradually phasing out dirty, fossil fuels. With the huge amount of electricity now being generated by wind turbines and solar cells, hydrogen becomes a very desirable fuel and really is the answer to our (green) prayers. Bring it on!

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!!

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 14 2016, 08:49 PM

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

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 14 2016, 10:29 PM

There simply ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by: Blake Dec 14 2016, 11:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Blake Dec 14 2016, 11:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 15 2016, 12:45 AM

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?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Dec 15 2016, 01:21 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 15 2016, 09:27 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 15 2016, 09:28 AM

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.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 15 2016, 09:44 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 15 2016, 10:19 AM

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?

Posted by: spartacus Dec 16 2016, 12:09 AM

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 )

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 16 2016, 08:35 AM

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?

Posted by: motormad Dec 16 2016, 09:29 AM

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.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 16 2016, 10:37 AM

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust:

"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."

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 16 2016, 01:09 PM

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

Posted by: JeffG Dec 16 2016, 02:14 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.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Dec 16 2016, 02:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 16 2016, 05:54 PM

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

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 16 2016, 07:45 PM

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 17 2016, 07:36 AM

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

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 17 2016, 09:11 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 17 2016, 08:36 AM) *
Fewer? wink.gif

Conceded!! tongue.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Dec 17 2016, 01:17 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 15 2016, 10:44 AM) *
From BBC News:

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.

This all started when VW fudged a cheat code into the ecu software to pass emissions control in California, before that no one worried a jot. They may well "demonise" diesel, they always have. Their aim is to sell petrol, lots of it. Efficient diesel is not on the oil barons agenda mate.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 17 2016, 07:12 PM

Gadzooks sirrah, thou speaketh most wisely!

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 17 2016, 07:14 PM

Sorry about that, but I had a glass of Malmsey at luncheon and been channelling Sir John Falstaff all afternoon.!!

Posted by: JeffG Dec 17 2016, 07:50 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Dec 17 2016, 07:12 PM) *
Gadzooks sirrah, thou speaketh most wisely!

Trying to outdo Andy Capp here: speakest?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 17 2016, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Dec 17 2016, 01:17 PM) *
This all started when VW fudged a cheat code into the ecu software to pass emissions control in California, before that no one worried a jot. They may well "demonise" diesel, they always have. Their aim is to sell petrol, lots of it. Efficient diesel is not on the oil barons agenda mate.


They actually need to balance petrol and diesel sales or we'll just end up with a massive store of unusable fuel. If you are looking for an American conspiracy, look at car manufacturers, Ford and GM certainly don't want VW.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 17 2016, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 17 2016, 08:50 PM) *
Trying to outdo Andy Capp here: speakest?

Pah! A pox on your knavish tongue sirrah!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2016, 07:38 AM

It's all about perceptions. The make up to one side, imagine if we'd started out using hydrogen to fuel our transport. If some genius came along and showed us petrol, we'd not be inclined to use it. Simplistically, hydrogen burns up and away, whereas petrol burns spreads and sticks.

Posted by: Rdg Dec 19 2016, 10:14 AM

The thing is that every barrel of crude that comes out of the ground is split into different types of hydrocarbon (factions) form the heaviest Tar to the gaseous bits, whilst there is differences in the make up of different crudes (Brent crude has a lot of lighter factions and alberta oil shales a lot of the heavier) they are all mixes - the reason diesel became comparatively more expensive per litre than petrol (it used to be cheaper) was because of supply and demand (we bought lots more diesel cars) it came back to parity with the worldwide reduction in transportation due to the economic slump. If you banned diesel cars completely then the oil companies (refinery part) would have to charge more for the petrol element to make the same profit out of each barrel they refine.

Diesel cars are also on average a lot more efficient per mile than a petrol as well as pumping out less naties per litre burnt - Although I will admit PM10'S from worn diesels are very bad for lungs.

Hydrogen cars will compete with agriculture for Hydrogen as EVERY farm in the uk and I would guess europe uses Ammonia based fertilizers; that ammonia is made by reacting Nitrogen in the atmosphere with Hydrogen N2 + 3H2 => 2NH3, if you increase transportation use of hydrogen you will push up food prices as farmers will have to pay more for fertilizer (a major input cost). All of these uses of hydrocarbons are interconnected - if you want to make it last we need to get away from hydrocarbon based transport and that is NOT hydrogen fuel cells until you can generate the H2 by splitting water using non hydrocarbon generated electricity or you are robbing peter to pay paul


Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2016, 10:42 AM

There was a strong view back in the mid 70's that if we ought to utilize nuclear power to meet most of the daytime load and then use that same capacity to generate hydrogen gas at night. Its not easy, economic or efficient to 'switch out' nuclear generating plant as load drops. The very idea seemed to scare; but its feasible and but for the wetware could be as safe as anything else we do.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 19 2016, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (Rdg @ Dec 19 2016, 10:14 AM) *
Hydrogen cars will compete with agriculture for Hydrogen as EVERY farm in the uk and I would guess europe uses Ammonia based fertilizers; that ammonia is made by reacting Nitrogen in the atmosphere with Hydrogen N2 + 3H2 => 2NH3,

That sent me off to Google and http://answers.seneye.com/en/water_chemistry/what_is_ammonia_NH3_NH4 because I thought Ammonia/Ammonium was NH4.

According to that site, NH3 is a toxic gas, and is the unionised form of NH4. (Who'd have thought there was a union for ammonia? wink.gif)
NH4 is a non-toxic salt and is the ionised form of ammonia.

I'm guessing that it's NH4 that is used to make fertilisers, but I am happy to be corrected.

Posted by: Rdg Dec 19 2016, 12:00 PM

I got it from this site while trying to find evidence of my knowledge that h2 is used for fertilizer - maybe it is a precursor compound

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizer-plants-grow-thanks-to-cheap-natural-gas/

Posted by: blackdog Dec 19 2016, 07:40 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 19 2016, 11:16 AM) *
That sent me off to Google and http://answers.seneye.com/en/water_chemistry/what_is_ammonia_NH3_NH4 because I thought Ammonia/Ammonium was NH4.

According to that site, NH3 is a toxic gas, and is the unionised form of NH4. (Who'd have thought there was a union for ammonia? wink.gif)
NH4 is a non-toxic salt and is the ionised form of ammonia.

I'm guessing that it's NH4 that is used to make fertilisers, but I am happy to be corrected.

Surely Ammonia is NH4 and Ammonium is NH3. Ammonium is ionised and needs to bond to form anything stable (eg to H for Ammonia, or NO3 for the fertiliser ammonium nitrate that is so useful for bomb making)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 20 2016, 07:34 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 19 2016, 07:40 PM) *
Surely Ammonia is NH4 and Ammonium is NH3. Ammonium is ionised and needs to bond to form anything stable (eg to H for Ammonia, or NO3 for the fertiliser ammonium nitrate that is so useful for bomb making)

Other way round. NH3 is ammonia, NH4+ is the ammonium ion.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 23 2016, 10:25 AM

You can get your hydrogen car and build your wind farms but the general concencus ishttp://www.holidayextras.co.uk/news/hx-travel/record-numbers-go-abroad-for-christmas-holiday-11192.html

Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2016, 01:59 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 23 2016, 10:25 AM) *
You can get your hydrogen car and build your wind farms but the general concencus ishttp://www.holidayextras.co.uk/news/hx-travel/record-numbers-go-abroad-for-christmas-holiday-11192.html


Yes, you are quite right, but it's worth considering why. Climate change, fossil fuel depletion, damage by noxious gas and so on, just how true is the information we' ve been fed? Is it as true as what the railway CEO had just said about improving our railways over Christmas? Is it as true as the need for the next range of local government cuts and so on and on and on. Little wonder then, that 'the people' are now taking no notice at all. As certain economists are prone to point out, in the long term we are all dead. So then Biker, just enjoy what you may and have a happy Christmas in case there is a new year.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 23 2016, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 23 2016, 02:59 PM) *
Yes, you are quite right, but it's worth considering why. Climate change, fossil fuel depletion, damage by noxious gas and so on, just how true is the information we' ve been fed? Is it as true as what the railway CEO had just said about improving our railways over Christmas? Is it as true as the need for the next range of local government cuts and so on and on and on. Little wonder then, that 'the people' are now taking no notice at all. As certain economists are prone to point out, in the long term we are all dead. So then Biker, just enjoy what you may and have a happy Christmas in case there is a new year.

Why worry? the next ice age will wipe us out anyway, as I always say, leave it to the youngsters to sort out, apparently they know everything so it makes sense.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2016, 04:40 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Dec 23 2016, 04:25 PM) *
Why worry? the next ice age will wipe us out anyway, as I always say, leave it to the youngsters to sort out, apparently they know everything so it makes sense.


Quite; and perhaps we will see an end to all this bikes is best, and five different dustbins nonsense.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 19 2017, 08:42 AM

Just to ad more "doom and gloom" as they say into the discussion....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38652196 is a MUCH bigger threat to the future than the likes of a deluded wealthy businessman becoming leader of the free world.
Something which seems to be largely ignored ............that is until it's too late! sad.gif
Electric cars? wind farms? Wast of time when our environment is being destroyed at it's current rate.
(Oh and thanks OTE, had a good Christmas and my New Year has been reasonably happy so far! tongue.gif )

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 19 2017, 09:29 AM

I'm afraid that when people whinge on about saving the planet what they really mean is "I'm trying to make sure humanity is safe" if people really want to 'save the world' (makes airwagging gesture) the best way would be if everyone simply walked into the sea. Our very existence on this planet is killing it.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 19 2017, 09:53 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jan 19 2017, 08:42 AM) *
Just to ad more "doom and gloom" as they say into the discussion....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38652196 is a MUCH bigger threat to the future than the likes of a deluded wealthy businessman becoming leader of the free world.
Something which seems to be largely ignored ............that is until it's too late! sad.gif
Electric cars? wind farms? Wast of time when our environment is being destroyed at it's current rate.
(Oh and thanks OTE, had a good Christmas and my New Year has been reasonably happy so far! tongue.gif )


...and long may it continue Biker! Your article is at least a bright ray of hope; the big beasts are on the way out, so us pond life move on. tongue.gif

Posted by: On the edge Jan 19 2017, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jan 19 2017, 09:29 AM) *
I'm afraid that when people whinge on about saving the planet what they really mean is "I'm trying to make sure humanity is safe" if people really want to 'save the world' (makes airwagging gesture) the best way would be if everyone simply walked into the sea. Our very existence on this planet is killing it.


Let us know how you get on TM.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 19 2017, 10:11 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jan 19 2017, 10:29 AM) *
I'm afraid that when people whinge on about saving the planet what they really mean is "I'm trying to make sure humanity is safe" if people really want to 'save the world' (makes airwagging gesture) the best way would be if everyone simply walked into the sea. Our very existence on this planet is killing it.

I would agree TM with the caveat "In such large numbers" our very existence on this planet is killing it.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)