Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Milzy

Well-Known Member
Edit - A light short range car that charges in a few minutes, or hydrogen, is the way to go.

We will see. Why do they keep building brand new IC cars? Hydrogen is far too dangerous to be in the hands of the public silly buns.
 

Wobblers

Member
Edit - A light short range car that charges in a few minutes, or hydrogen, is the way to go.

No. Hydrogen is not the way to go. Hydrogen is an awful transport fuel. It has an appallingly low density, so much that it either has to compressed to 900 atmospheres or liquefied at -253 C. Neither is an option that is remotely safe to be used by the public - the compressed gas cylinders you may have seen in industrial settings only go to 230 atmospheres, and even then they are handled very carefully. And even after going to all these lengths, the hydrogen tank occupies far more room than a conventional liquid fuel (so I hope you're not planning on taking any luggage... ).

The infrastructure used to handle and generate hydrogen is very specialised (metal lined pressure vessels of woven carbon fibres is typical), bespoke, expensive and some cases - such as the pressure vessel above - unlikely to see any economies in scale by scaling manufacturing up. Substituting diesel and petrol infrastruture for hydrogen is not a realistic prospect, even over a timescale of decades.

Then there's the awkward fact that using hydrogen as a fuel means you end up - at best - losing 66% of your energy source. That assumes using fuel cell powered vehicles. But, well, the fuel cells that work all use platinum. I've just spent £1500 on grams (!) of platinum wire (ironically we use it essentially as a minuture fuel cell, as it provides a stable voltage reference) which ought to be a clue as to why this is a bad idea. Plus, only 200 tonnes is mined every year, for rather valuable industrial uses: we simply don't have enough of the metal to spare on a large fleet of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Using conventioanl IC engines, your energy losses approach 90%. That's just not feasible.

Put bluntly, hydrogen just doesn't make economic (or thermodynamic) sense. The solution isn't hydrogen: the solution is fewer cars. This hydrogen economy fantasy is deeply unhelpful, as it is used to justify the pernicious idea that we can blithely continue with business as usual. We can't.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 121

Guest
The only solution is to use cars less where possible. What powers them is neigh on irrelevant at this point. Its like picking the best sewer to swim in. Unless a new power source such as unicorn farts come along that promises to power the factories that manufacturer cars, cars themselves and their entire disposal with the only by-product being a slight rumble, happiness and bliss then we're all just swimming in the same filth looking for a cleaner corner to settle in. EV's may blow out cleaner air, but remember personal transport use and car ownership is growing worldwide all the time and if ICE cars went away tomorrow, eventually pollution and emissions would catch up in another way. I am in a position to give up my car, did so 6 months ago now and my bike is my transport. I save thousands of pounds which now goes into a pension. I understand not everybody is able to give up their car, not all businesses are able to, even if they did actually want to. But the reality is that for all of its wondrous conveniences, the car is the most inefficient way to travel. 1-2 tonnes of vehicle, be that engines, batteries, motors whatever, to in most instances carry one person about is terrible in more ways than one.
 

matticus

Guru
No. Hydrogen is not the way to go. Hydrogen is an awful transport fuel. It has an appallingly low density, so much that it either has to compressed to 900 atmospheres or liquefied at -253 C. Neither is an option that is remotely safe to be used by the public - the compressed gas cylinders you may have seen in industrial settings only go to 230 atmospheres, and even then they are handled very carefully. And even after going to all these lengths, the hydrogen tank occupies far more room than a conventional liquid fuel (so I hope you're not planning on taking any luggage... ).

The infrastructure used to handle and generate hydrogen is very specialised (metal lined pressure vessels of woven carbon fibres is typical), bespoke, expensive and some cases - such as the pressure vessel above - unlikely to see any economies in scale by scaling manufacturing up. Substituting diesel and petrol infrastruture for hydrogen is not a realistic prospect, even over a timescale of decades.

Then there's the awkward fact that using hydrogen as a fuel means you end up - at best - losing 66% of your energy source. That assumes using fuel cell powered vehicles. But, well, the fuel cells that work all use platinum. I've just spent £1500 on grams (!) of platinum wire (ironically we use it essentially as a minuture fuel cell, as it provides a stable voltage reference) which ought to be a clue as to why this is a bad idea. Plus, only 200 tonnes is mined every year, for rather valuable industrial uses: we simply don't have enough of the metal to spare on a large fleet of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Using conventioanl IC engines, your energy losses approach 90%. That's just not feasible.

Put bluntly, hydrogen just doesn't make economic (or thermodynamic) sense. The solution isn't hydrogen: the solution is fewer cars. This hydrogen economy fantasy is deeply unhelpful, as it is used to justify the pernicious idea that we can blithely continue with business as usual. We can't.

I was chatting to a cycling civil engineer recently. He said that for stuff like JCBs and fork-lifts - often used 24x7, and in a fairly small area - hydrogen tanks on-site made much more sense than batteries/EV, due to the time taken for recharging. But the power industry was much keener on batteries/EV.
Anyway, that's a bit off-topic ...
 

the snail

Active Member
...

Put bluntly, hydrogen just doesn't make economic (or thermodynamic) sense. The solution isn't hydrogen: the solution is fewer cars. This hydrogen economy fantasy is deeply unhelpful, as it is used to justify the pernicious idea that we can blithely continue with business as usual. We can't.

It's popular with the fossil-fuel industry, as it allows them to keep selling hydrocarbons for vehicles.
 

Milzy

Well-Known Member
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...sed-to-block-scottish-bottle-recycling-scheme

'Taking back control'.
From Scotland too. This policy also keeps Norway clean and it would be a godsend for the UK.

You can get cycling Bidons that biodegrade now. Albeit fairly slowly. Why can’t they make the bottles like that incase they are missed to be recycled?
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Alister Jack is an absolute melt.

Barr used to do this until 2015 with their glass bottles of ginger. I don't know why they stopped.
 

theclaud

Reading around the chip
What an image.

Ft8BeDaWcAEeg_H?format=jpg&name=medium.jpg
 

Beebo

Veteran

It’s an impressive image and will gain lots of news coverage. But the general public simply doesn’t support this sort of protest as snooker has nothing to do with the oil industry.
It’s probably anti productive for JSO in the long run.
I’d much rather see blockages around motorways and airports as these are far easier to justify.
 

matticus

Guru
It’s an impressive image and will gain lots of news coverage. But the general public simply doesn’t support this sort of protest as snooker has nothing to do with the oil industry.
It’s probably anti productive for JSO in the long run.
I’d much rather see blockages around motorways and airports as these are far easier to justify.

If you mean "the general public" that is in denial about climate change, they;
- will moan about any protest that affects them, especially blocking roads, and
- will totally ignore the protests blocking private jets.
- will always say "i support them, but don't think this* is the right way to go about it".

*Could be anything - road blocks, baked bean bath, setting themselves on fire, setting the head of BP on fire ...

Go to any news article on the internet for repeated multiple proofs of the above.
<and breathe ... >
 
Top Bottom