An $11 trillion global hydrogen energy boom is coming....

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 13:52:25 UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
....

For example:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/vss142_pratt_2014_p..pdf
Yes, it\'s possible to do it all from the EVSE side, but the problem is that the EVSE does not know what car is connected to it. For example, i might allow a Tesla to discharge (feeding the grid) to 50%, but would not want a Leaf to do that. ChaDeMo can tell the EVSE what is connected to it, CCS or J1772 can\'t.

J1772 doesn\'t allow bidirectional charging anyway so it\'s not an issue - there wouldn\'t be any discharge.

CCS does not currently provide the control for V2X (bidirectional charging) but the fact that VW, Hyundai and others have already announced support in their cars indicates it is on the way. It doesn\'t require any hardware modifications as a bidirectional datalink already exists in CCS.

I suspect that Chademo may have virtually died out by then.

2025 is the date that\'s mentioned in this article for bidirectional charging support in CCS.

https://thedriven.io/2020/07/21/the-road-to-bidirectional-ccs-electric-car-charging/

 

[Ed Lee]

On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:

On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 13:52:25 UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
...

For example:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/vss142_pratt_2014_p.pdf
Yes, it\'s possible to do it all from the EVSE side, but the problem is that the EVSE does not know what car is connected to it. For example, i might allow a Tesla to discharge (feeding the grid) to 50%, but would not want a Leaf to do that. ChaDeMo can tell the EVSE what is connected to it, CCS or J1772 can\'t.
J1772 doesn\'t allow bidirectional charging anyway so it\'s not an issue - there wouldn\'t be any discharge.

CCS does not currently provide the control for V2X (bidirectional charging) but the fact that VW, Hyundai and others have already announced support in their cars indicates it is on the way. It doesn\'t require any hardware modifications as a bidirectional datalink already exists in CCS.

All existing CCS vehicles does not allow bidirectional control. VW, Hyundai and others would have to come up with a new protocol to enable it. Meanwhile, charging stations would not be providing it any time soon, since it can\'t tell what vehicles are connected to it. In another word, CCS (at least the current version) is not possible for grid storage.

> I suspect that Chademo may have virtually died out by then.

Death of ChaDeMo has been greatly exaggerated, said Mark.

> 2025 is the date that\'s mentioned in this article for bidirectional charging support in CCS.

Well, CCS 2 perhaps, and all new charging stations and vehicles.

> https://thedriven.io/2020/07/21/the-road-to-bidirectional-ccs-electric-car-charging/

 

[Ed Lee]

On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:37:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:

On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 13:52:25 UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
...

For example:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/vss142_pratt_2014_p.pdf
Yes, it\'s possible to do it all from the EVSE side, but the problem is that the EVSE does not know what car is connected to it. For example, i might allow a Tesla to discharge (feeding the grid) to 50%, but would not want a Leaf to do that. ChaDeMo can tell the EVSE what is connected to it, CCS or J1772 can\'t.
J1772 doesn\'t allow bidirectional charging anyway so it\'s not an issue - there wouldn\'t be any discharge.

CCS does not currently provide the control for V2X (bidirectional charging) but the fact that VW, Hyundai and others have already announced support in their cars indicates it is on the way. It doesn\'t require any hardware modifications as a bidirectional datalink already exists in CCS.
All existing CCS vehicles does not allow bidirectional control. VW, Hyundai and others would have to come up with a new protocol to enable it. Meanwhile, charging stations would not be providing it any time soon, since it can\'t tell what vehicles are connected to it. In another word, CCS (at least the current version) is not possible for grid storage.
I suspect that Chademo may have virtually died out by then.
Death of ChaDeMo has been greatly exaggerated, said Mark.
2025 is the date that\'s mentioned in this article for bidirectional charging support in CCS.
Well, CCS 2 perhaps, and all new charging stations and vehicles.

https://thedriven.io/2020/07/21/the-road-to-bidirectional-ccs-electric-car-charging/

I think they will add two more pins to the TCS (Triple Combo System). This away, it would not be compatible with existing CCS plugs, and give them more times to build their EVs and compete with existing EVs. In the future, there will be ChaDeMo, CCS and TCS for all fast chargers, until they drop CCS. In another word, CCS was a marketing plot (sorry plan) by some auto makers.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

lørdag den 12. december 2020 kl. 03.12.05 UTC+1 skrev Bill Sloman:

On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 1:59:16 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 6:17:04 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 6:52:40 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5- year schedule.

Scheduled to be operational by 2025, the first phase of the Advanced Clean
Energy Storage project will provide 150,000 MWh of renewable power storage capacity, nearly 150 times the current U.S. installed lithium-ion battery storage base, according to Mitsubishi Power

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/01/how-salt-caverns-may-trigger-11-trillion-hydrogen-energy-boom-.html

U.S. DOE is already making plans for the infrastructural development needed to support distribution of this energy source. Fuel cells are far enough along for them to start getting ready.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced $33 million in funding to support innovative hydrogen and fuel cell research and development (R&D), infrastructure supply chain development and validation, and cost analysis activities. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) builds upon existing efforts funded by DOE\'s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office to reduce cost, improve performance, and strengthen a domestic supply chain for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and applications.
Venture capitalists love the idea. Anybody with any sense notices that converting electrical energy into hydrogen and converting it back to electrical energy loses about 75% of the energy you started off with. Batteries only lose about 15%.

Not sure efficiency is all that much of a consideration when the energy source is free. I think the idea is that the big solar installation already powering the grid will be a bit oversized to send power to the electrolysis process on the side.
The energy source is free, but the solar cells that collect it aren\'t, and they have to have the dust washed off from time to time.

The cost of power from solar cells is largely the interest on the capital you invested to buy them in the first place, in the same way that the cost of hydroelectric power is essentially the interest on the money you had to spend to build the dam and the power station and the turbines and generating plant you put inside it.

not unlike nuclear, fuel is only a few millicent per kWh, buildind and financing a plant it cost billions

 

[Steve Wilson]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 12. december 2020 kl. 03.12.05 UTC+1 skrev Bill Sloman:
On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 1:59:16 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs
wrote:

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 6:17:04 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman
wrote:

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 6:52:40 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs
wrote:

This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5-
year sc hedule.

Scheduled to be operational by 2025, the first phase of the
Advance d Clean Energy Storage project will provide 150,000 MWh
of renewable power
storage capacity, nearly 150 times the current U.S. installed
lithium-ion b attery storage base, according to Mitsubishi Power

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/01/how-salt-caverns-may-trigger-11-
tri llion-hydrogen-energy-boom-.html

U.S. DOE is already making plans for the infrastructural
developmen
t needed to support distribution of this energy source. Fuel cells are
far enough along for them to start getting ready.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced $33 million in
fundin
g to support innovative hydrogen and fuel cell research and
development (R& D), infrastructure supply chain development and
validation, and cost analysis activities. This funding opportunity
announcement (FOA) builds upon existing efforts funded by DOE\'s
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office to reduce cost, improve
performance, and strengthen a domestic supply chain for hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies and applications.
Venture capitalists love the idea. Anybody with any sense notices
tha
t converting electrical energy into hydrogen and converting it back to
elec trical energy loses about 75% of the energy you started off with.
Batteries only lose about 15%.

Not sure efficiency is all that much of a consideration when the
energy
source is free. I think the idea is that the big solar installation
alread
y powering the grid will be a bit oversized to send power to the
electrolysis process on the side.
The energy source is free, but the solar cells that collect it
aren\'t, an d they have to have the dust washed off from time to time.

The cost of power from solar cells is largely the interest on the
capital
you invested to buy them in the first place, in the same way that the
cost of hydroelectric power is essentially the interest on the money
you had to spend to build the dam and the power station and the
turbines and generating plant you put inside it.

not unlike nuclear, fuel is only a few millicent per kWh, buildind and
financing a plant it cost billions

Go to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. We will never run out of fuel - it is
everywhere, even on the moon. No expensive fuel processing is needed -
thorium is used as it comes out of the ground. No expensive steel
pressure vessel is needed - runs at atmospheric pressure. Self-shielding
so minimal extra shielding is needed.

Cannot melt down - it is already molten. No auxilary storage needed -
power expands and contracts with load. Walk-away safe. No need for spent
fuel storage pits.

Extremely high fuel burn - approaches 100%. Can even burn radioactive
waste from conventional reactors. Runs at much higher temperature than
water-cooled reactors which increases output and efficiency.

No chance of a steam explosion - there is no water in the reactor. Three
Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot happen.

Molten salt does not need large body of water for cooling. Sites can be
close to point of use, so power lines are shorter and cheaper.

Molten salt reactor byproducts are easier to handle and can decay in 300
years instead of millenia from conventional reactors.

Current reactors get fuel burn of 0.5% (0.7% for Candu), then fuel rods
must be removed from reactor. The spent fuel rods are highly reactive and
need expensive storage pits to cool. Spent fuel requires expensive
processing and long-term storage in salt mines. A multitude of hazards
exist that must be protected against. These all increase cost for
conventional reactors.

First examples ran around 1965, so we know it works. Development is slow
with minimal funding in most countries. China is running full-tilt and
could monopolize the market.





--
The best designs occur in the theta state. - sw

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 4:12:35 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 11:15:36 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:27:04 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:59:53 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

fredag den 11. december 2020 kl. 22.04.46 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:20:33 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 07:01:12 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:52:34 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5- year schedule.

Scheduled to be operational by 2025, the first phase of the Advanced Clean
Energy Storage project will provide 150,000 MWh of renewable power storage capacity, nearly 150 times the current U.S. installed lithium-ion battery storage base, according to Mitsubishi Power

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/01/how-salt-caverns-may-trigger-11-trillion-hydrogen-energy-boom-.html

U.S. DOE is already making plans for the infrastructural development needed to support distribution of this energy source. Fuel cells are far enough along for them to start getting ready.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced $33 million in funding to support innovative hydrogen and fuel cell research and development (R&D), infrastructure supply chain development and validation, and cost analysis activities. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) builds upon existing efforts funded by DOE\'s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office to reduce cost, improve performance, and strengthen a domestic supply chain for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and applications.
“California curtailed between 150,000-300,000 MWh of excess renewable
energy per month through the spring of 2020, yet saw its first rolling
blackouts in August because the grid was short on energy,”

That\'s what happens when you let politicians, especially elite
airheads like Newsom, control energy policy. Or control anything..

What are you going to do if you can\'t store the excess? That\'s what this program is all about.

In a cold climate, use electricity to heat water and use hot water
later on as needed. In a hot climate, cool water so that heat from
air conditioning can easily be dumped into it. Even better, use excess
electricity to make ice, You can dump quite a lot heat to melt this
ice.

A district heating & district cooling network is handy and you can
have huge centralized underground water reservoirs.
I spent some time in Moscow, on building automation. They had an
unmetered municipal hot-water system. When somewhere got too hot in
the winter, people just opened the windows.

class-A

here everyone who can get it has district heating, because it is the cheapest
powerplants, garbage incenerators, cement factories, even crematories adds heat to their local district
I think Apples big data center also does.
If Apple is using the water loop to cool chips, they need cold intake
water and will discharge warm water. That doesn\'t sound useful to me.
It would degrade the temperature of the municipal hot water. You can\'t
efficiently heat a building or a house or a shower with tepid water.
Maybe a swimming pool.

There is a lot of low-differential heat around, but nobody seems to
have found a way to use it.

Nice in winter, but where does the heat go in summer?

Use absorbtion heat pumps and district cooling networks.
Heat pumps to get rid of excess low-grade heat?

But where does the heat ultimately go?

Usually heats the air in the immediate vicinity, but there are schemes where you heat up the ground under your house all summer, and use the heat you dumped there during the winter to when your reverse cycle air conditioning can pull it out again. You don\'t have to go very deep to get a thermal time constant of about a year. It seems to be cheaper to go straight down, rather than dig up a lot of dirt and put it back.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-12-12, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:37:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 13:52:25 UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
...

For example:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/vss142_pratt_2014_p.pdf
Yes, it\'s possible to do it all from the EVSE side, but the problem is that the EVSE does not know what car is connected to it. For example, i might allow a Tesla to discharge (feeding the grid) to 50%, but would not want a Leaf to do that. ChaDeMo can tell the EVSE what is connected to it, CCS or J1772 can\'t.
J1772 doesn\'t allow bidirectional charging anyway so it\'s not an issue - there wouldn\'t be any discharge.

CCS does not currently provide the control for V2X (bidirectional charging) but the fact that VW, Hyundai and others have already announced support in their cars indicates it is on the way. It doesn\'t require any hardware modifications as a bidirectional datalink already exists in CCS.
All existing CCS vehicles does not allow bidirectional control. VW, Hyundai and others would have to come up with a new protocol to enable it. Meanwhile, charging stations would not be providing it any time soon, since it can\'t tell what vehicles are connected to it. In another word, CCS (at least the current version) is not possible for grid storage.
I suspect that Chademo may have virtually died out by then.
Death of ChaDeMo has been greatly exaggerated, said Mark.
2025 is the date that\'s mentioned in this article for bidirectional charging support in CCS.
Well, CCS 2 perhaps, and all new charging stations and vehicles.

https://thedriven.io/2020/07/21/the-road-to-bidirectional-ccs-electric-car-charging/

I think they will add two more pins to the TCS (Triple Combo System). This away, it would not be compatible with existing CCS plugs, and give them more times to build their EVs and compete with existing EVs. In the future, there will be ChaDeMo, CCS and TCS for all fast chargers, until they drop CCS. In another word, CCS was a marketing plot (sorry plan) by some auto makers.

It seems more likely that will just continure to use homeplug greenphy
over the existing pins.

--
Jasen.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12-Dec-20 1:59 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 6:17:04 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 6:52:40 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5- year schedule.

Scheduled to be operational by 2025, the first phase of the Advanced Clean
Energy Storage project will provide 150,000 MWh of renewable power storage capacity, nearly 150 times the current U.S. installed lithium-ion battery storage base, according to Mitsubishi Power

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/01/how-salt-caverns-may-trigger-11-trillion-hydrogen-energy-boom-.html

U.S. DOE is already making plans for the infrastructural development needed to support distribution of this energy source. Fuel cells are far enough along for them to start getting ready.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced $33 million in funding to support innovative hydrogen and fuel cell research and development (R&D), infrastructure supply chain development and validation, and cost analysis activities. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) builds upon existing efforts funded by DOE\'s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office to reduce cost, improve performance, and strengthen a domestic supply chain for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and applications.
Venture capitalists love the idea. Anybody with any sense notices that converting electrical energy into hydrogen and converting it back to electrical energy loses about 75% of the energy you started off with. Batteries only lose about 15%.

Not sure efficiency is all that much of a consideration when the energy source is free. I think the idea is that the big solar installation already powering the grid will be a bit oversized to send power to the electrolysis process on the side.



In Australia the fans of the idea dream of shipping tanker loads of liquid hydrogen to South Korea and Japan. More realistic people are dreaming of laying an under sea cable from Northern Australia to Singapore. There\'s plenty of sunlight and open country in Northern Australia, so we could generate a lot of solar power there.

The cable idea makes more sense just from the standpoint of shipping less mass around.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

All energy sources are free. Coal in the ground costs nothing. Ditto
oil. Ditto gas. Ditto Uranium oxides.

Yet somehow we always end up paying for energy. Clearly, there\'s
something wrong with the \"free\" notion.

Sylvia.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-8, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2020-12-12, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:37:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 13:52:25 UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
...

For example:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/vss142_pratt_2014_p.pdf
Yes, it\'s possible to do it all from the EVSE side, but the problem is that the EVSE does not know what car is connected to it. For example, i might allow a Tesla to discharge (feeding the grid) to 50%, but would not want a Leaf to do that. ChaDeMo can tell the EVSE what is connected to it, CCS or J1772 can\'t.
J1772 doesn\'t allow bidirectional charging anyway so it\'s not an issue - there wouldn\'t be any discharge.

CCS does not currently provide the control for V2X (bidirectional charging) but the fact that VW, Hyundai and others have already announced support in their cars indicates it is on the way. It doesn\'t require any hardware modifications as a bidirectional datalink already exists in CCS.
All existing CCS vehicles does not allow bidirectional control. VW, Hyundai and others would have to come up with a new protocol to enable it. Meanwhile, charging stations would not be providing it any time soon, since it can\'t tell what vehicles are connected to it. In another word, CCS (at least the current version) is not possible for grid storage.
I suspect that Chademo may have virtually died out by then.
Death of ChaDeMo has been greatly exaggerated, said Mark.
2025 is the date that\'s mentioned in this article for bidirectional charging support in CCS.
Well, CCS 2 perhaps, and all new charging stations and vehicles.

https://thedriven.io/2020/07/21/the-road-to-bidirectional-ccs-electric-car-charging/

I think they will add two more pins to the TCS (Triple Combo System). This away, it would not be compatible with existing CCS plugs, and give them more times to build their EVs and compete with existing EVs. In the future, there will be ChaDeMo, CCS and TCS for all fast chargers, until they drop CCS. In another word, CCS was a marketing plot (sorry plan) by some auto makers.
It seems more likely that will just continure to use homeplug greenphy
over the existing pins.

True. They can also eliminate the pilot and proximity pins and run everything over the power line. But that means all existing CCS vehicles won\'t work. So, CCS days are numbered. Four more years until 2025.

Next gen chargers might only have two pins. Does it sound like Tesla? The original CCS idea was trying to make it KISS, now they have to make it as complicated as possible.

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 22:16:08 UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
....

True. They can also eliminate the pilot and proximity pins and run everything over the power line. But that means all existing CCS vehicles won\'t work. So, CCS days are numbered. Four more years until 2025.

Next gen chargers might only have two pins. Does it sound like Tesla? The original CCS idea was trying to make it KISS, now they have to make it as complicated as possible.

Unlikely. It will be expensive to separate the high-frequency signals used for PLC communication in CSS if it went over the power wires. Much easier to send it over the pilot line as is done now. So you end up with the CCS2 connector as defined now. (Tesla has the same number of pins, 2 power, 1 ground, 1 signaling).

All the other features are available with the existing connectors with software changes, current cars may be compatible with updated software (or the features are backward compatible).

All that is required on the power side is a contactor to disconnect the battery from the power pins - that is on all cars today capable of fast charging.

 

[John Doe]

Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

Go to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. We will never run out of fuel - it is
everywhere, even on the moon. No expensive fuel processing is needed -
thorium is used as it comes out of the ground. No expensive steel
pressure vessel is needed - runs at atmospheric pressure. Self-shielding
so minimal extra shielding is needed.

Cannot melt down - it is already molten. No auxilary storage needed -
power expands and contracts with load. Walk-away safe. No need for spent
fuel storage pits.

Extremely high fuel burn - approaches 100%. Can even burn radioactive
waste from conventional reactors. Runs at much higher temperature than
water-cooled reactors which increases output and efficiency.

No chance of a steam explosion - there is no water in the reactor. Three
Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot happen.

Molten salt does not need large body of water for cooling. Sites can be
close to point of use, so power lines are shorter and cheaper.

Molten salt reactor byproducts are easier to handle and can decay in 300
years instead of millenia from conventional reactors.

Current reactors get fuel burn of 0.5% (0.7% for Candu), then fuel rods
must be removed from reactor. The spent fuel rods are highly reactive and
need expensive storage pits to cool. Spent fuel requires expensive
processing and long-term storage in salt mines. A multitude of hazards
exist that must be protected against. These all increase cost for
conventional reactors.

First examples ran around 1965, so we know it works. Development is slow
with minimal funding in most countries. China is running full-tilt and
could monopolize the market.

Says who?

There\'s nothing wrong with nuclear, just anti-nuclear zealots running around
screaming \"Fukushima!\". That killed one person while they ignore the tsunami
that killed 20,000 people.

Someday, a giant meteor will plow into Earth, everybody eventually dying as
a result. The anti-nuclear freaks will run around screaming \"The nuclear
power plants are failing!\"

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 2:46:49 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:
This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5- year
schedule.

[...]

Again? How old are you, that you still believe this nonsense?

Jeroen Belleman

They\'re here already:
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/2020/fuel.html

 

[server]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 11:19:44 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 2:46:49 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:
This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5- year
schedule.

[...]

Again? How old are you, that you still believe this nonsense?

Jeroen Belleman
They\'re here already:
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/2020/fuel.html

Why is hydrogen \"incredibly pure\" ? Makes no sense. All elements are
pure.

That site is such blather.

Fuel cells have been promising since 1838. Hydrogen has been expensive
for even longer.

Have you ordered a fuel-cell hydrogen car?





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 11:19:44 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 2:46:49 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:
This is not something that\'s 25 years off, now it\'s on a 5- year
schedule.

[...]

Again? How old are you, that you still believe this nonsense?

Jeroen Belleman
They\'re here already:
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/2020/fuel.html
Why is hydrogen \"incredibly pure\" ? Makes no sense. All elements are
pure.

That site is such blather.

Fuel cells have been promising since 1838. Hydrogen has been expensive
for even longer.

Have you ordered a fuel-cell hydrogen car?

I don\'t drive even 750 miles annual, making it cheaper to use Uber than own a car, although I still do. It\'s rare to wait even 10 minutes for them to show up, they\'re swarming all over the place.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:15:35 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

Go to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. We will never run out of fuel - it is
everywhere, even on the moon. No expensive fuel processing is needed -
thorium is used as it comes out of the ground. No expensive steel
pressure vessel is needed - runs at atmospheric pressure. Self-shielding
so minimal extra shielding is needed.

Cannot melt down - it is already molten. No auxilary storage needed -
power expands and contracts with load. Walk-away safe. No need for spent
fuel storage pits.

Extremely high fuel burn - approaches 100%. Can even burn radioactive
waste from conventional reactors. Runs at much higher temperature than
water-cooled reactors which increases output and efficiency.

No chance of a steam explosion - there is no water in the reactor. Three
Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot happen.

Molten salt does not need large body of water for cooling. Sites can be
close to point of use, so power lines are shorter and cheaper.

Molten salt reactor byproducts are easier to handle and can decay in 300
years instead of millenia from conventional reactors.

Current reactors get fuel burn of 0.5% (0.7% for Candu), then fuel rods
must be removed from reactor. The spent fuel rods are highly reactive and
need expensive storage pits to cool. Spent fuel requires expensive
processing and long-term storage in salt mines. A multitude of hazards
exist that must be protected against. These all increase cost for
conventional reactors.

First examples ran around 1965, so we know it works. Development is slow
with minimal funding in most countries. China is running full-tilt and
could monopolize the market.

Says who?

There\'s nothing wrong with nuclear, just anti-nuclear zealots running around
screaming \"Fukushima!\". That killed one person while they ignore the tsunami
that killed 20,000 people.

Nuclear power has one fatal flaw - it\'s more expensive that wind and solar power. It\'s also large scale so there\'s a lot of capital investment and long lead times before you get any power at all.

Anti-nuclear zealots are just as unrealistic as pro-nuclear zealots, and both set of lunatics of them are wasting their time worrying about nuclear power.

> Someday, a giant meteor will plow into Earth, everybody eventually dying as a result.

Perhaps, but not if we see it coming early enough. The dinosaurs didn\'t survey the skies for object that might hit the earth. We do seem to be doing that now, and if we identified an object that might hit the earth early enough, we should be able to change it\'s orbit enough to avoid getting hit.

> The anti-nuclear freaks will run around screaming \"The nuclear power plants are failing!\"

Probably not. It\'s not clear that a hydrogen bomb would be the ideal way to administer an orbit-adjusting momentum impulse, but it is one possibility.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[none]

In article <21894128-275c-4bc5-92c0-6db28eb1a1b2n@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:15:35 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

Go to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. We will never run out of fuel - it is
everywhere, even on the moon. No expensive fuel processing is needed -
thorium is used as it comes out of the ground. No expensive steel
pressure vessel is needed - runs at atmospheric pressure. Self-shielding
so minimal extra shielding is needed.

Cannot melt down - it is already molten. No auxilary storage needed -
power expands and contracts with load. Walk-away safe. No need for spent
fuel storage pits.

Extremely high fuel burn - approaches 100%. Can even burn radioactive
waste from conventional reactors. Runs at much higher temperature than
water-cooled reactors which increases output and efficiency.

No chance of a steam explosion - there is no water in the reactor. Three
Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot happen.

Molten salt does not need large body of water for cooling. Sites can be
close to point of use, so power lines are shorter and cheaper.

Molten salt reactor byproducts are easier to handle and can decay in 300
years instead of millenia from conventional reactors.

Current reactors get fuel burn of 0.5% (0.7% for Candu), then fuel rods
must be removed from reactor. The spent fuel rods are highly reactive and
need expensive storage pits to cool. Spent fuel requires expensive
processing and long-term storage in salt mines. A multitude of hazards
exist that must be protected against. These all increase cost for
conventional reactors.

First examples ran around 1965, so we know it works. Development is slow
with minimal funding in most countries. China is running full-tilt and
could monopolize the market.

Says who?

There\'s nothing wrong with nuclear, just anti-nuclear zealots running around
screaming \"Fukushima!\". That killed one person while they ignore the tsunami
that killed 20,000 people.

Nuclear power has one fatal flaw - it\'s more expensive that wind and solar power. It\'s also large scale so there\'s a lot of capital investment and long lead
times before you get any power at all.

Anti-nuclear zealots are just as unrealistic as pro-nuclear zealots, and both set of lunatics of them are wasting their time worrying about nuclear power.

Someday, a giant meteor will plow into Earth, everybody eventually dying as a result.

Perhaps, but not if we see it coming early enough. The dinosaurs didn\'t survey the skies for object that might hit the earth. We do seem to be doing that now,
and if we identified an object that might hit the earth early enough, we should be able to change it\'s orbit enough to avoid getting hit.

The anti-nuclear freaks will run around screaming \"The nuclear power plants are failing!\"

Probably not. It\'s not clear that a hydrogen bomb would be the ideal way to administer an orbit-adjusting momentum impulse, but it is one possibility.

It is easy enough to do a back of the envelope calculation.
Above a certain size a couple of H bombs do not do it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Groetjes Albert
--
This is the first day of the end of your life.
It may not kill you, but it does make your weaker.
If you can\'t beat them, too bad.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 12:51:43 AM UTC+11, none albert wrote:

In article <21894128-275c-4bc5...@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:15:35 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

Go to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. We will never run out of fuel - it is
everywhere, even on the moon. No expensive fuel processing is needed -
thorium is used as it comes out of the ground. No expensive steel
pressure vessel is needed - runs at atmospheric pressure. Self-shielding
so minimal extra shielding is needed.

Cannot melt down - it is already molten. No auxilary storage needed -
power expands and contracts with load. Walk-away safe. No need for spent
fuel storage pits.

Extremely high fuel burn - approaches 100%. Can even burn radioactive
waste from conventional reactors. Runs at much higher temperature than
water-cooled reactors which increases output and efficiency.

No chance of a steam explosion - there is no water in the reactor. Three
Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot happen.

Molten salt does not need large body of water for cooling. Sites can be
close to point of use, so power lines are shorter and cheaper.

Molten salt reactor byproducts are easier to handle and can decay in 300
years instead of millenia from conventional reactors.

Current reactors get fuel burn of 0.5% (0.7% for Candu), then fuel rods
must be removed from reactor. The spent fuel rods are highly reactive and
need expensive storage pits to cool. Spent fuel requires expensive
processing and long-term storage in salt mines. A multitude of hazards
exist that must be protected against. These all increase cost for
conventional reactors.

First examples ran around 1965, so we know it works. Development is slow
with minimal funding in most countries. China is running full-tilt and
could monopolize the market.

Says who?

There\'s nothing wrong with nuclear, just anti-nuclear zealots running around
screaming \"Fukushima!\". That killed one person while they ignore the tsunami
that killed 20,000 people.

Nuclear power has one fatal flaw - it\'s more expensive that wind and solar power. It\'s also large scale so there\'s a lot of capital investment and long lead
times before you get any power at all.

Anti-nuclear zealots are just as unrealistic as pro-nuclear zealots, and both set of lunatics of them are wasting their time worrying about nuclear power.

Someday, a giant meteor will plow into Earth, everybody eventually dying as a result.

Perhaps, but not if we see it coming early enough. The dinosaurs didn\'t survey the skies for object that might hit the earth. We do seem to be doing that now,
and if we identified an object that might hit the earth early enough, we should be able to change it\'s orbit enough to avoid getting hit.

The anti-nuclear freaks will run around screaming \"The nuclear power plants are failing!\"

Probably not. It\'s not clear that a hydrogen bomb would be the ideal way to administer an orbit-adjusting momentum impulse, but it is one possibility.

It is easy enough to do a back of the envelope calculation.
Above a certain size a couple of H bombs do not do it.

Above a certain size an asteroid is lot easier to see, and we\'ll have to more time to deliver more impulse, and perhaps more impulses. The further away from earth it is when we do it, the smaller the impulse required to get the asteroid into a orbit that doesn\'t involve it hitting the earth.

Clearly you are either using too small an envelope, or not thinking hard enough about what would need to be achieved.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

The least electronics oriented, most active troll in this group...

--
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:714c:: with SMTP id h12mr35892321qtp.361.1608042248987; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:24:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:301:: with SMTP id q1mr36169362qtw.237.1608042248780; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:24:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5fd8bf66$0$281$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=202.53.36.8; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.53.36.8
References: <498c3558-f6eb-4069-adef-726f33f1019dn@googlegroups.com> <XnsAC91CE00957BFidtokenpost@69.16.179.21> <rr5p8f$l8b$3@dont-email.me> <21894128-275c-4bc5-92c0-6db28eb1a1b2n@googlegroups.com> <5fd8bf66$0$281$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <60215471-f7c1-4112-9183-82716d8f4e03n@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: An $11 trillion global hydrogen energy boom is coming.
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:24:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 102
X-Received-Bytes: 5722
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:616131

On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 12:51:43 AM UTC+11, none albert wrote:
In article <21894128-275c-4bc5...@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:15:35 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

Go to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. We will never run out of fuel -
it is
everywhere, even on the moon. No expensive fuel processing is needed
-
thorium is used as it comes out of the ground. No expensive steel
pressure vessel is needed - runs at atmospheric pressure. Self-shiel
ding
so minimal extra shielding is needed.

Cannot melt down - it is already molten. No auxilary storage needed
-
power expands and contracts with load. Walk-away safe. No need for s
pent
fuel storage pits.

Extremely high fuel burn - approaches 100%. Can even burn radioactiv
e
waste from conventional reactors. Runs at much higher temperature th
an
water-cooled reactors which increases output and efficiency.

No chance of a steam explosion - there is no water in the reactor. T
hree
Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot happen.

Molten salt does not need large body of water for cooling. Sites can
be
close to point of use, so power lines are shorter and cheaper.

Molten salt reactor byproducts are easier to handle and can decay in
300
years instead of millenia from conventional reactors.

Current reactors get fuel burn of 0.5% (0.7% for Candu), then fuel r
ods
must be removed from reactor. The spent fuel rods are highly reactiv
e and
need expensive storage pits to cool. Spent fuel requires expensive

processing and long-term storage in salt mines. A multitude of hazar
ds
exist that must be protected against. These all increase cost for
conventional reactors.

First examples ran around 1965, so we know it works. Development is
slow
with minimal funding in most countries. China is running full-tilt a
nd
could monopolize the market.

Says who?

There\'s nothing wrong with nuclear, just anti-nuclear zealots running
around
screaming \"Fukushima!\". That killed one person while they ignore the t
sunami
that killed 20,000 people.

Nuclear power has one fatal flaw - it\'s more expensive that wind and sol
ar power. It\'s also large scale so there\'s a lot of capital investment and long lead
times before you get any power at all.

Anti-nuclear zealots are just as unrealistic as pro-nuclear zealots, and
both set of lunatics of them are wasting their time worrying about nuclear power.

Someday, a giant meteor will plow into Earth, everybody eventually dyi
ng as a result.

Perhaps, but not if we see it coming early enough. The dinosaurs didn\'t
survey the skies for object that might hit the earth. We do seem to be doing that now,
and if we identified an object that might hit the earth early enough, we
should be able to change it\'s orbit enough to avoid getting hit.

The anti-nuclear freaks will run around screaming \"The nuclear power p
lants are failing!\"

Probably not. It\'s not clear that a hydrogen bomb would be the ideal way
to administer an orbit-adjusting momentum impulse, but it is one possibility.

It is easy enough to do a back of the envelope calculation.
Above a certain size a couple of H bombs do not do it.

Above a certain size an asteroid is lot easier to see, and we\'ll have to more time to deliver more impulse, and perhaps more impulses. The further away from earth it is when we do it, the smaller the impulse required to get the asteroid into a orbit that doesn\'t involve it hitting the earth.

Clearly you are either using too small an envelope, or not thinking hard enough about what would need to be achieved.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney