Green Hydrogen

ToniM wrote:
Hello All,

I have been a proponent of a Green Hydrogen Economy - that is H2 that is produced by electrolysis - and for that purpose signed-up to a couple of sites, so I could keep up with developments:

* Hydrogen Fuel News
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/ and

* Fuel Cells Works
https://fuelcellsworks.com/

It seems to me that several key developments discussed on their sites that could represent a leap in technology that could take us one step closer to enable us to transition to a Green, Global Hydrogen Economy in relatively few years.

I am interested in impartial discussions about how this can be catalysed as widely as possible.

I am NOT interested in the intransigent bigotry of the likes of Elon Musk, who will consistently deny the feasibility of H2 as a global fuel, flying in the face of the evidence and recent developments.

The news on the above sites show big, global players are making giant strides towards this objective. Regrettably the disingenuous Fossil Fuel corporations still seek to sell us:

* Blue H2 (steam reformation of gas/coal + carbon capture)
* Grey H2 (same as Blue, but without the CO2 capture)
* Pink (from nuclear electricity)
* Torquoise (from Methane pyrolysis)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/

I believe the feasibility of a Hydrogen Economy is several steps closer by the development of two crucial steps:

1) seawater electrolysis - that frees us from using much needed freshwater supplies
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-production-china-sea/8556602/

AND

2) conversion of H2(g) to a powder fuel H2(s) that is is safe and stable at standard pressure and ambient temperature by combining it with other elements, as a compound by pioneer

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-storage-electriq-award/8559243/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/electriq-powder-plant/8557504/

Electriq Group
https://www.electriq.com/

Q. 1. How do we get serious scoping of these potentials ahead of global R&D to make H2 mainstream?

The technology is probably best applied to larger scale projects, to begin with, while the efficiencies at lower scale - e.g. for fuel cell cars - are refined and the distribution systems developed.

Q2 How do we get investment to shift from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear to these new Tech, that can create millions of jobs, alonge the full supply chain, globally.

Q.3. What is the feasibility of establishing international projects in areas in dire need of development (e.g. North Africa and the Sahel)? These regions are rich in resources like sun, wind and sand (for manufacture of solar panels) and could benefit from large-bore seawater pipelines bringing in seawater for electrolysis and fuel production, using the above technologies

Q.4. Could a new iteration of the Move Your Money movement catalyse a migration of bank accounts, pension frunds and savings, from financial institutions currently financing Fossil Fuels, into ethical investments, and how?

Swan wrote:

1. Hydrogen is not green, and it is no safer today than when this happened

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

1. Hydrogen is not green, and it is no safer today than when this happened

WOW! you didn't' alf take that personally, mate!!!

Clear indication of bigotry

1) GREEN hydrogen is green when it's produced by electrolysis of water powered by Renwables

2) Trump is a cheap little scab, pushed by the Petrodollars, had he not been born wealthy he'd have been a pimp, a petty thief or a drug dealer

3) MAGA = Make America Green Again

You need to follow the links I posted and update your understanding of H2 technologies in THIS century, rather than cite irrelevant information from the 1930s

PS Read-up about the Hinderberg before citing bollocks

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

ToniM wrote:
<sighs> I do suggest to you both that you READ before you write... that is why I posted the links to the Hydrogen Fuel News site.

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-fuel-car-sales-2023/8560033/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-car-rowan-atkinson/8559847/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-vehicles-toyota-yeg/8559700/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-fuel-al-2024-olympic/8559423/

https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-hydrogen-combustion-engine-has-the-potential-to-make-evs-obsolete/

https://mag.toyota.co.uk/hydrogen-gr-yaris-showcases-experimental-engine/

Yes, there are tehnical obstacles, but, as it happens, we now have H2 pilots, especially in trains, trucking and even aeroplanes, by large concerns.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2022/11/06/the-hydrogen-economy-will-soon-be-ready-for-take-off-including-planes-and-power-plants/

It always amuses me how much vitriol is poured out in the responses to any conversation about the ongoing evolution of H2 technology; I guess one might attribute it either to out-of-date information or a deep-seated antipathy and mistrust amongst the petrolheads of the world

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

1. Hydrogen is not green, and it is no safer today than when this happened

WOW! you didn't' alf take that personally, mate!!!

Clear indication of bigotry

1) GREEN hydrogen is green when it's produced by electrolysis of water powered by Renwables

ToniM wrote:
2) Trump is a cheap little scab, pushed by the Petrodollars, had he not been born wealthy he'd have been a pimp, a petty thief or a drug dealer

ToniM wrote:
3) MAGA = Make America Green Again

ToniM wrote:
You need to follow the links I posted and update your understanding of H2 technologies in THIS century, rather than cite irrelevant information from the 1930s

ToniM wrote:
PS Read-up about the Hinderberg before citing bollocks

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

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history

Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Water fuel cell" redirects here. For other purported water fueled devices, see Water-fueled car. For fuel cells, see Fuel cell.
The water fuel cell is a technical design of a "perpetual motion machine" created by Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 20, 1998). Meyer claimed that a car retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.[1][2]

Description
The water fuel cell purportedly split water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen gas was then burned to generate energy, a process that reconstituted the water molecules. According to Meyer, the device required less energy to perform electrolysis than the minimum energy requirement predicted or measured by conventional science.[1] The mechanism of action was alleged to involve "Brown's gas", a mixture of oxyhydrogen with a ratio of 2:1, the same composition as liquid water; which would then be mixed with ambient air (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc).[3] The resultant hydrogen gas was then burned to generate energy, which reconstituted the water molecules in another unit separate from the unit in which water was separated. If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][3] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine.[3]

The term "fuel cell"

The circuit[4]
Throughout his patents[4][5][6] Meyer used the terms "fuel cell" or "water fuel cell" to refer to the portion of his device in which electricity is passed through water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Meyer's use of the term in this sense is contrary to its usual meaning in science and engineering, in which such cells are conventionally called "electrolytic cells".[7] Furthermore, the term "fuel cell" is usually reserved for cells that produce electricity from a chemical redox reaction,[8][9] whereas Meyer's fuel cell consumed electricity, as shown in his patents and in the circuit pictured on the right. Meyer describes in a 1990 patent the use of a "water fuel cell assembly" and portrays some images of his "fuel cell water capacitor". According to the patent, in this case "... the term 'fuel cell' refers to a single unit of the invention comprising a water capacitor cell ... that produces the fuel gas in accordance with the method of the invention."[5]

Media coverage

The water fuel cell[5]
In a news report on an Ohio TV station, Meyer showed a dune buggy he claimed was powered by his water fuel cell. He stated that only 22 US gallons (83 liters) of water were required to travel from Los Angeles to New York.[10] Furthermore, Meyer claimed to have replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" that introduced a hydrogen/oxygen mixture into the engine cylinders. The water was subjected to an electrical resonance that dissociated it into its basic atomic make-up. The water fuel cell would split the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapor in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy.[2]

Philip Ball, writing in academic journal Nature, characterized Meyer's claims as pseudoscience, noting that "It's not easy to establish how Meyer's car was meant to work, except that it involved a fuel cell that was able to split water using less energy than was released by recombination of the elements ... Crusaders against pseudoscience can rant and rave as much as they like, but in the end they might as well accept that the myth of water as a fuel is never going to go away."[3]

To date, no peer reviewed studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature. An article in journal Nature described Meyer's claims as one more "water as fuel" myth.[3]

Lawsuit
Stanley Meyer's invention was later termed fraudulent after two investors to whom he had sold dealerships offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology sued him in 1996. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[2] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses[who?] in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis." The court found Meyer had committed "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[2]

Meyer's death
Stanley Meyer died suddenly on March 20, 1998, while dining at a restaurant. His brother claimed that during a meeting with two Belgian investors, Meyer suddenly ran outside, saying "They poisoned me".[1] After an investigation, the Grove City police agreed with the Franklin County coroner report that ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a cerebral aneurysm.[1] Some of Meyer's supporters believe that he was assassinated to suppress his inventions.[1][3][11] Philippe Vandemoortele, one of the Belgian investors, stated that he had been supporting Meyer financially for several years and considered him a personal friend, and that he has no idea where the rumours came from.[12]

Aftermath
Meyer's patents have expired. His inventions are now in the public domain, available for all to use without restriction or royalty payment.[13] No engine or vehicle manufacturer has incorporated Meyer's work.

Swan wrote:
[quote]ToniM wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:


Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

Swan wrote:

Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

This last remark outs you as the inferior, and your ignorance of Hydrogen technologies seals the deal!

I decline to engage with sub-humans. You are marked for deletion in the coming holocaust.

May Am'riKKKa soon be rid of diseased genealogies like yours and returned to its legitimate owners: its Native First Nations!

Swan wrote:

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

This last remark outs you as the inferior, and your ignorance of Hydrogen technologies seals the deal!

I decline to engage with sub-humans. You are marked for deletion in the coming holocaust.

May Am'riKKKa soon be rid of diseased genealogies like yours and returned to its legitimate owners: its Native First Nations!

So in other words you have no argument to make as to Hydrogen fuel cells only being 30 percent effective and wasting 70 percent of the Hydrogen fuel.

PS. Technically it is not possible for you to decline to engage with me, without engaging with me, as you just did.

On the surface, hydrogen sounds like the wonder fuel to solve all our ecological problems. When employed in a fuel cell, its only byproduct is water, which is hardly going to destroy the atmosphere. But what really appeals to people is the fact you can refuel a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in the same kind of way as a fossil fuel car. No lifestyle changes are necessary. Your car will have a completely different engine inside, but unless you enjoy tinkering with its mechanicals, you won't notice from day to day. You can just head to a fuel station when you need a five-minute top-up, just like the good old days.

Hydrogen's Inherent Flaw
The problem is that this convenience hides a significant flaw in the technology that has somehow failed to be included in the marketing propaganda of hydrogen evangelists. It doesn't appear to be widely understood by those who have been listening to these messages either. The flaw is basically caused by the laws of physics. For hydrogen to be completely green, it must be produced by electrolyzing water, which splits this into the H2 and O that it is made of. You can produce H2 from fossil fuels (usually methane), but this creates either "grey" hydrogen (which still produces lots of CO2) or "blue" hydrogen (which captures 90% of the CO2 and stores it, merely delaying the problem). Only electrolyzing hydrogen from water using electricity generated from renewable sources makes the fuel entirely green.

Toyota Mirai at hydrogen pump
Hydrogen has already lost more than half of its energy before it even gets to the car.JAMES MORRIS
This is an inefficient system that wastes energy. According to a frequently cited study by Transport & Environment, the process of electrolyzing hydrogen already loses 30% of the energy from the process of splitting the H2 from the O. You then have another 26% loss of the remaining energy from transporting the hydrogen to the fuel station, meaning you've already lost a total of 48% of the energy before any hydrogen makes it into a vehicle. You can save some of this by making hydrogen on site, but electrolysis plants cost millions, so they will more likely be centralized. In comparison, the typical loss from transferring electricity over wires to a charging station is just 5%, so you still have 95% left.

Things are already looking bad for hydrogen before you even put it in a car, but then you have the inefficiency of the powertrain in the vehicle. There are ways to burn hydrogen directly using synthetic fuel types or even via a paste, but these fuels lose even more energy in the process of production, and potentially have particulate emissions issues too. So, instead, for most personal hydrogen-based transportation applications, a clever technology called a fuel cell is utilized. This recombines the hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, which also generates electricity. It's an incredible technical achievement, but unfortunately, you lose half the remaining energy in the process. This means you're now down to 26% of the original electricity.

Now what does this mean for Hydrogen transportation? Two things, an electric car that has 300 miles or range when converted to Hydrogen power only has 78 miles of range making it unusable and impractical for daily use. Or two, the car would have to be 74% larger in order to have a practical range, making a Hydrogen car far larger than two semi's rendering it even more impractical.

You may now continue babbling like Pocahontas

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]ToniM wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:


Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

With that comment you completely outed yourself as INFERIOR and BENEATH CONTEMPT.

I decline to engage with creatures that are far beneath the majority of animals.

Face your destiny, when it comes, adn may Am'riKKKa be returned to its legitimate owners: the Indigenous First Nations, that SO put the likes of you to shame!

Happy extinction!

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

This last remark outs you as the inferior, and your ignorance of Hydrogen technologies seals the deal!

I decline to engage with sub-humans. You are marked for deletion in the coming holocaust.

May Am'riKKKa soon be rid of diseased genealogies like yours and returned to its legitimate owners: its Native First Nations!

ToniM wrote:
Wast of space and time debating with 'people' llike you.

You are not here for debate, you are an egotistocal, ignorant pus-filled cyst, ready to burst, have no idea what you're taling about, so you bluster at length, missing the point.

You didn't address MY points but want to bully me into responding to yours.

Well that might work in the U S of A, but here in Europe your disrespect is considered self-evident proof of ignorance.

ALL your arguments are off the mark and out of date.

BYE!

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

ToniM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Have you always been retarded, or did you study?

This last remark outs you as the inferior, and your ignorance of Hydrogen technologies seals the deal!

I decline to engage with sub-humans. You are marked for deletion in the coming holocaust.

May Am'riKKKa soon be rid of diseased genealogies like yours and returned to its legitimate owners: its Native First Nations!

So in other words you have no argument to make as to Hydrogen fuel cells only being 30 percent effective and wasting 70 percent of the Hydrogen fuel.

PS. Technically it is not possible for you to decline to engage with me, without engaging with me, as you just did.

On the surface, hydrogen sounds like the wonder fuel to solve all our ecological problems. When employed in a fuel cell, its only byproduct is water, which is hardly going to destroy the atmosphere. But what really appeals to people is the fact you can refuel a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in the same kind of way as a fossil fuel car. No lifestyle changes are necessary. Your car will have a completely different engine inside, but unless you enjoy tinkering with its mechanicals, you won't notice from day to day. You can just head to a fuel station when you need a five-minute top-up, just like the good old days.

Hydrogen's Inherent Flaw
The problem is that this convenience hides a significant flaw in the technology that has somehow failed to be included in the marketing propaganda of hydrogen evangelists. It doesn't appear to be widely understood by those who have been listening to these messages either. The flaw is basically caused by the laws of physics. For hydrogen to be completely green, it must be produced by electrolyzing water, which splits this into the H2 and O that it is made of. You can produce H2 from fossil fuels (usually methane), but this creates either "grey" hydrogen (which still produces lots of CO2) or "blue" hydrogen (which captures 90% of the CO2 and stores it, merely delaying the problem). Only electrolyzing hydrogen from water using electricity generated from renewable sources makes the fuel entirely green.

Toyota Mirai at hydrogen pump
Hydrogen has already lost more than half of its energy before it even gets to the car.JAMES MORRIS
This is an inefficient system that wastes energy. According to a frequently cited study by Transport & Environment, the process of electrolyzing hydrogen already loses 30% of the energy from the process of splitting the H2 from the O. You then have another 26% loss of the remaining energy from transporting the hydrogen to the fuel station, meaning you've already lost a total of 48% of the energy before any hydrogen makes it into a vehicle. You can save some of this by making hydrogen on site, but electrolysis plants cost millions, so they will more likely be centralized. In comparison, the typical loss from transferring electricity over wires to a charging station is just 5%, so you still have 95% left.

Things are already looking bad for hydrogen before you even put it in a car, but then you have the inefficiency of the powertrain in the vehicle. There are ways to burn hydrogen directly using synthetic fuel types or even via a paste, but these fuels lose even more energy in the process of production, and potentially have particulate emissions issues too. So, instead, for most personal hydrogen-based transportation applications, a clever technology called a fuel cell is utilized. This recombines the hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, which also generates electricity. It's an incredible technical achievement, but unfortunately, you lose half the remaining energy in the process. This means you're now down to 26% of the original electricity.

Now what does this mean for Hydrogen transportation? Two things, an electric car that has 300 miles or range when converted to Hydrogen power only has 78 miles of range making it unusable and impractical for daily use. Or two, the car would have to be 74% larger in order to have a practical range, making a Hydrogen car far larger than two semi's rendering it even more impractical.

You may now continue babbling like Pocahontas

Wast of space and time debating with 'people' llike you.

You are not here for debate, you are an egotistocal, ignorant pus-filled cyst, ready to burst, have no idea what you're taling about, so you bluster at length, missing the point.

You didn't address MY points but want to bully me into responding to yours.

Well that might work in the U S of A, but here in Europe your disrespect is considered self-evident proof of ignorance.

ALL your arguments are off the mark and out of date.

BYE!

ToniM wrote:
Hello All,

I have been a proponent of a Green Hydrogen Economy - that is H2 that is produced by electrolysis - and for that purpose signed-up to a couple of sites, so I could keep up with developments:

* Hydrogen Fuel News
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/ and

* Fuel Cells Works
https://fuelcellsworks.com/

It seems to me that several key developments discussed on their sites that could represent a leap in technology that could take us one step closer to enable us to transition to a Green, Global Hydrogen Economy in relatively few years.

I am interested in impartial discussions about how this can be catalysed as widely as possible.

I am NOT interested in the intransigent bigotry of the likes of Elon Musk, who will consistently deny the feasibility of H2 as a global fuel, flying in the face of the evidence and recent developments.

The news on the above sites show big, global players are making giant strides towards this objective. Regrettably the disingenuous Fossil Fuel corporations still seek to sell us:

* Blue H2 (steam reformation of gas/coal + carbon capture)
* Grey H2 (same as Blue, but without the CO2 capture)
* Pink (from nuclear electricity)
* Torquoise (from Methane pyrolysis)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/

I believe the feasibility of a Hydrogen Economy is several steps closer by the development of two crucial steps:

1) seawater electrolysis - that frees us from using much needed freshwater supplies
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-production-china-sea/8556602/

AND

2) conversion of H2(g) to a powder fuel H2(s) that is is safe and stable at standard pressure and ambient temperature by combining it with other elements, as a compound by pioneer

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-storage-electriq-award/8559243/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/electriq-powder-plant/8557504/

Electriq Group
https://www.electriq.com/

Q. 1. How do we get serious scoping of these potentials ahead of global R&D to make H2 mainstream?

The technology is probably best applied to larger scale projects, to begin with, while the efficiencies at lower scale - e.g. for fuel cell cars - are refined and the distribution systems developed.

Q2 How do we get investment to shift from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear to these new Tech, that can create millions of jobs, alonge the full supply chain, globally.

Q.3. What is the feasibility of establishing international projects in areas in dire need of development (e.g. North Africa and the Sahel)? These regions are rich in resources like sun, wind and sand (for manufacture of solar panels) and could benefit from large-bore seawater pipelines bringing in seawater for electrolysis and fuel production, using the above technologies

Q.4. Could a new iteration of the Move Your Money movement catalyse a migration of bank accounts, pension frunds and savings, from financial institutions currently financing Fossil Fuels, into ethical investments, and how?

duncan61 wrote:

ToniM wrote:
Hello All,

I have been a proponent of a Green Hydrogen Economy - that is H2 that is produced by electrolysis - and for that purpose signed-up to a couple of sites, so I could keep up with developments:

* Hydrogen Fuel News
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/ and

* Fuel Cells Works
https://fuelcellsworks.com/

It seems to me that several key developments discussed on their sites that could represent a leap in technology that could take us one step closer to enable us to transition to a Green, Global Hydrogen Economy in relatively few years.

I am interested in impartial discussions about how this can be catalysed as widely as possible.

I am NOT interested in the intransigent bigotry of the likes of Elon Musk, who will consistently deny the feasibility of H2 as a global fuel, flying in the face of the evidence and recent developments.

The news on the above sites show big, global players are making giant strides towards this objective. Regrettably the disingenuous Fossil Fuel corporations still seek to sell us:

* Blue H2 (steam reformation of gas/coal + carbon capture)
* Grey H2 (same as Blue, but without the CO2 capture)
* Pink (from nuclear electricity)
* Torquoise (from Methane pyrolysis)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/

I believe the feasibility of a Hydrogen Economy is several steps closer by the development of two crucial steps:

1) seawater electrolysis - that frees us from using much needed freshwater supplies
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-production-china-sea/8556602/

AND

2) conversion of H2(g) to a powder fuel H2(s) that is is safe and stable at standard pressure and ambient temperature by combining it with other elements, as a compound by pioneer

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-storage-electriq-award/8559243/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/electriq-powder-plant/8557504/

Electriq Group
https://www.electriq.com/

Q. 1. How do we get serious scoping of these potentials ahead of global R&D to make H2 mainstream?

The technology is probably best applied to larger scale projects, to begin with, while the efficiencies at lower scale - e.g. for fuel cell cars - are refined and the distribution systems developed.

Q2 How do we get investment to shift from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear to these new Tech, that can create millions of jobs, alonge the full supply chain, globally.

Q.3. What is the feasibility of establishing international projects in areas in dire need of development (e.g. North Africa and the Sahel)? These regions are rich in resources like sun, wind and sand (for manufacture of solar panels) and could benefit from large-bore seawater pipelines bringing in seawater for electrolysis and fuel production, using the above technologies

Q.4. Could a new iteration of the Move Your Money movement catalyse a migration of bank accounts, pension frunds and savings, from financial institutions currently financing Fossil Fuels, into ethical investments, and how?

I am British and live in Australia.
Insults first. Mate why engage on the internet with Swan. Just let it slide. I do. Reacting to swan made you say dumb stuff then the parrot got ya a bazinga by declaring to be a native.
This is what is actually happening here in the State of Western Australia. Twiggy Forrest is passionate about developing hydrogen and has a fleet of 15 cars at last count that have a hydrogen fuel cell. I have seen one. When they run low they are driven to BOC kewdale where they are refueled and the Exec takes a full one. The parrot is right, It costs more to make the fuel to be practical for everyday driving. I have come in to some money recently and am doing auto auctions with the intent of other people selling said cars and making a small profit to live on. At the last auction there were 2 cars I was impressed with and researched why these cars that are low mileage and less than 10 years old are so cheap. They are both Toyota Camry hybrids and they are worn out and now use more petrol than a standard car as the batteries hold no charge and they are double the weight of a standard Camry. All the EVs will go down a similar path. The market will always decide the success of new products.

duncan61 wrote:

ToniM wrote:
Hello All,

I have been a proponent of a Green Hydrogen Economy - that is H2 that is produced by electrolysis - and for that purpose signed-up to a couple of sites, so I could keep up with developments:

* Hydrogen Fuel News
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/ and

* Fuel Cells Works
https://fuelcellsworks.com/

It seems to me that several key developments discussed on their sites that could represent a leap in technology that could take us one step closer to enable us to transition to a Green, Global Hydrogen Economy in relatively few years.

I am interested in impartial discussions about how this can be catalysed as widely as possible.

I am NOT interested in the intransigent bigotry of the likes of Elon Musk, who will consistently deny the feasibility of H2 as a global fuel, flying in the face of the evidence and recent developments.

The news on the above sites show big, global players are making giant strides towards this objective. Regrettably the disingenuous Fossil Fuel corporations still seek to sell us:

* Blue H2 (steam reformation of gas/coal + carbon capture)
* Grey H2 (same as Blue, but without the CO2 capture)
* Pink (from nuclear electricity)
* Torquoise (from Methane pyrolysis)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/

I believe the feasibility of a Hydrogen Economy is several steps closer by the development of two crucial steps:

1) seawater electrolysis - that frees us from using much needed freshwater supplies
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-production-china-sea/8556602/

AND

2) conversion of H2(g) to a powder fuel H2(s) that is is safe and stable at standard pressure and ambient temperature by combining it with other elements, as a compound by pioneer

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-storage-electriq-award/8559243/

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/electriq-powder-plant/8557504/

Electriq Group
https://www.electriq.com/

Q. 1. How do we get serious scoping of these potentials ahead of global R&D to make H2 mainstream?

The technology is probably best applied to larger scale projects, to begin with, while the efficiencies at lower scale - e.g. for fuel cell cars - are refined and the distribution systems developed.

Q2 How do we get investment to shift from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear to these new Tech, that can create millions of jobs, alonge the full supply chain, globally.

Q.3. What is the feasibility of establishing international projects in areas in dire need of development (e.g. North Africa and the Sahel)? These regions are rich in resources like sun, wind and sand (for manufacture of solar panels) and could benefit from large-bore seawater pipelines bringing in seawater for electrolysis and fuel production, using the above technologies

Q.4. Could a new iteration of the Move Your Money movement catalyse a migration of bank accounts, pension frunds and savings, from financial institutions currently financing Fossil Fuels, into ethical investments, and how?

I am British and live in Australia.
Insults first. Mate why engage on the internet with Swan. Just let it slide. I do. Reacting to swan made you say dumb stuff then the parrot got ya a bazinga by declaring to be a native.
This is what is actually happening here in the State of Western Australia. Twiggy Forrest is passionate about developing hydrogen and has a fleet of 15 cars at last count that have a hydrogen fuel cell. I have seen one. When they run low they are driven to BOC kewdale where they are refueled and the Exec takes a full one. The parrot is right, It costs more to make the fuel to be practical for everyday driving. I have come in to some money recently and am doing auto auctions with the intent of other people selling said cars and making a small profit to live on. At the last auction there were 2 cars I was impressed with and researched why these cars that are low mileage and less than 10 years old are so cheap. They are both Toyota Camry hybrids and they are worn out and now use more petrol than a standard car as the batteries hold no charge and they are double the weight of a standard Camry. All the EVs will go down a similar path. The market will always decide the success of new products.

duncan61 wrote: Somehow you have denigrated me and agreed with me at the same time. I have seen the hydrogen fuel cell cars. The office people for Fortescue mining drive them. They are refueled at BOC in Kewdale. no one drives across Australia they use them in the metro area to get to the office and back.

duncan61 wrote:
Somehow you have denigrated me and agreed with me at the same time. I have seen the hydrogen fuel cell cars. The office people for Fortescue mining drive them. They are refueled at BOC in Kewdale. no one drives across Australia they use them in the metro area to get to the office and back. This thing that is wrong with you is not a small thing

Swan wrote: ... and playing with your toy hydrogen car that has a range of 50 miles from the ONE refueling station which makes 99.999999999% of Australia out of range of the as said toy car.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: ... and playing with your toy hydrogen car that has a range of 50 miles from the ONE refueling station which makes 99.999999999% of Australia out of range of the as said toy car.

You exaggerate. Only 99.999% is out of range.

ToniM wrote:
Never seen so much ignorance and bigotry in one place!
How many sqwaking on here are funded by fossil fuels, je me demande.
Not really worth the time of anyone with a halfway decent degree, most of the people answering on this thread speak from ignorance that is at least 20 years out of sink.
Bye suckers, your world is ending, ours is just beginning!

ToniM wrote:
Never seen so much ignorance and bigotry in one place!
How many sqwaking on here are funded by fossil fuels, je me demande.
Not really worth the time of anyone with a halfway decent degree, most of the people answering on this thread speak from ignorance that is at least 20 years out of sink.
Bye suckers, your world is ending, ours is just beginning!

Into the Night wrote:

ToniM wrote:
Never seen so much ignorance and bigotry in one place!
How many sqwaking on here are funded by fossil fuels, je me demande.
Not really worth the time of anyone with a halfway decent degree, most of the people answering on this thread speak from ignorance that is at least 20 years out of sink.
Bye suckers, your world is ending, ours is just beginning!

No 'squawking' here is funded by fossil fuels. There are no fossil fuels.

Swan wrote: Coal and oil are fossil fuels ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Coal and oil are fossil fuels ...

Thus, to the best of your science understanding, you believe that carbon and hydrocarbons belong lumped together in the same category, yes?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ToniM wrote:
Never seen so much ignorance and bigotry in one place!
How many sqwaking on here are funded by fossil fuels, je me demande.
Not really worth the time of anyone with a halfway decent degree, most of the people answering on this thread speak from ignorance that is at least 20 years out of sink.
Bye suckers, your world is ending, ours is just beginning!

No 'squawking' here is funded by fossil fuels. There are no fossil fuels.

Coal and oil are fossil fuels as they are composed of your parent's brains

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Coal and oil are fossil fuels ...

Thus, to the best of your science understanding, you believe that carbon and hydrocarbons belong lumped together in the same category, yes?

Says...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ToniM wrote:
Never seen so much ignorance and bigotry in one place!
How many sqwaking on here are funded by fossil fuels, je me demande.
Not really worth the time of anyone with a halfway decent degree, most of the people answering on this thread speak from ignorance that is at least 20 years out of sink.
Bye suckers, your world is ending, ours is just beginning!

No 'squawking' here is funded by fossil fuels. There are no fossil fuels.

Coal and oil are fossil fuels as they are composed of your parent's brains

Neither coal nor oil are fossils.

Swan wrote:Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels. If you were not a sociopathic schizzo you could comprehend this

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels. If you were not a sociopathic schizzo you could comprehend this

So the answer is "Yes," that to the best of your science understanding, coal [carbon], oil & natural gas [hydrocarbon chains] should be lumped together into the same category because you think they are fossils.

Interesting.

Now I understand why you are so intimately familiar with psychiatric drugs.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels. If you were not a sociopathic schizzo you could comprehend this

So the answer is "Yes," that to the best of your science understanding, coal [carbon], oil & natural gas [hydrocarbon chains] should be lumped together into the same category because you think they are fossils.

Interesting.

Now I understand why you are so intimately familiar with psychiatric drugs.

Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels. If you were not a sociopathic schizzo you could comprehend this

So the answer is "Yes," that to the best of your science understanding, coal [carbon], oil & natural gas [hydrocarbon chains] should be lumped together into the same category because you think they are fossils.

Interesting.

Now I understand why you are so intimately familiar with psychiatric drugs.

Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels.

So the answer is "Yes," that to the best of your science understanding, coal [which is carbon], and oil & natural gas [which are hydrocarbon chains] belong lumped together into the same category because you think they are fossils, or are fuel for fossils.

This might explain why you insist that amphibious animals aren't amphibious.

.

Swan wrote: You forgot to explain what coal, oil and natural gas are and come from,

Swan wrote: ... and alligators are still amphibious reptiles not amphibians.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ToniM wrote:
Never seen so much ignorance and bigotry in one place!
How many sqwaking on here are funded by fossil fuels, je me demande.
Not really worth the time of anyone with a halfway decent degree, most of the people answering on this thread speak from ignorance that is at least 20 years out of sink.
Bye suckers, your world is ending, ours is just beginning!

No 'squawking' here is funded by fossil fuels. There are no fossil fuels.

Coal and oil are fossil fuels as they are composed of your parent's brains

Neither coal nor oil are fossils.

Actually coal, oil and natural gas are all fossil fuels. If you were not a sociopathic schizzo you could comprehend this