D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 18:24:17 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
>>
>>> But today, no, it is not feasable today, other than on a very small
>>> scale (single household) to be 100% solar and have sufficient
>>> storage to cover for some amount of "sun isn't shining" days.
>>
>> The solar companies here take another tack since pure solar isn't
>> feasible this far north. According to them when the sun is shining
>> you pump electricity into the grid, giving you credits when you're
>> pulling from the grid. Even then I assume their payback figures are
>> well cooked.
>>
>
> Is the grid prepared for this working at scale? And it seems to me that
> all solar would "sell" at the same time, driving down the price to zero or
> even creating an excess,

Already happens, fairly regularally in CA based on news reports.
Midday wholesale electric rates often go negative (electricy suppliers
will pay you to use electricity).

> while all the ones in this system would need energy at the same time
> (night) driving the price up, therefore again, needing some kind of
> storage.

This is the current kink. There is often enough abundance midday that
the price is negative (or generation is curtailed because it has no
sink into which to go). Nighttime, however, is a very different story.

Reality is, given current tech., pricing, and installed base, some form
of "base generation" using existing tech. (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro)
is required to last through the nights (and the 'days of overcast' that
sometimes happen). Only two of the four are 'carbon free' and only one
is suitable for use in geographic areas without significant volumes of
water running downhill.

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
> Modern flywheels - super-sized - COULD store rather a lot of
> energy. However you'd need to bury them a little Just In Case.

The physics of flywheels begin to bite you in the a** when you start
trying to "supersize" them for storage of significant amounts of
energy. You need exotic super strong materials (read as: "super
costly" and/or "does not exist yet") to prevent them from pulling
themselves apart rather explosively.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 01:08:41 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Well, Musk sells gigantic lithium batteries
>>
>> I'm waiting for more accurate information but there is a rumor Musk may
>> pivot to hydrogen. Great, another technology with no supporting
>> infrastructure.
>>
>
> Wow, Toyota would celebrate! I think they are still clinging to hydrogen.

Unless there's been some new exotic materials discovered that solves
the hydrogen embrittement problem, hydrogen on a large scale will
either be very very expensive for the pipe/bottle replacements needed,
or will simply create a different sort of "bomb" (vs. a lithum battery
fire) sitting next door.

A better 'solution' (although the catalyst tech may not yet exist) is
some form of electrically driven catalyst that could extract CO2 from
the air and synthesize some form of liquid fuel (liquid at STP). Then
solar PV would have a "sink" for their extra energy, and the
synthesized liquid fuel could be stored in normal non-pressure vessels,
piped/transported via the existing liquid fuel infrastructure, and
'burned' at a location remote from the synthesis to "move energy
around".

Of course the rabid greenies would see "burn fuel to make electricity"
as bad, even if the fuel being burned was synthesized via Solar PV
energy and atmospheric CO2 (plus likely water input as well, since one
tends to need some hydrocarbon bonds to create a fuel that is liquid at
STP).

On 08/12/2024 16:18, Rich wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>> Modern flywheels - super-sized - COULD store rather a lot of
>> energy. However you'd need to bury them a little Just In Case.
>
> The physics of flywheels begin to bite you in the a** when you start
> trying to "supersize" them for storage of significant amounts of
> energy. You need exotic super strong materials (read as: "super
> costly" and/or "does not exist yet") to prevent them from pulling
> themselves apart rather explosively.

Exactly. Sentences like "COULD store rather a lot of energy." are simple
hand-wavey nonsense,.

The UK to be fully 'renewable' for example would need to store the sort
of energy found in half a dozen medium sized strategic nuclear bombs.

However you do that, its damned risky - hydrogen - spinning flywheels -
hydro dams, batteries.

In fact the safest energy store capable of doing it is a set of
uranium/plutonium fuel rods. And then you don't need any renewable shit
at all.

Simples!

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 18:24:17 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> But today, no, it is not feasable today, other than on a very small
>>>> scale (single household) to be 100% solar and have sufficient
>>>> storage to cover for some amount of "sun isn't shining" days.
>>>
>>> The solar companies here take another tack since pure solar isn't
>>> feasible this far north. According to them when the sun is shining
>>> you pump electricity into the grid, giving you credits when you're
>>> pulling from the grid. Even then I assume their payback figures are
>>> well cooked.
>>>
>>
>> Is the grid prepared for this working at scale? And it seems to me that
>> all solar would "sell" at the same time, driving down the price to zero or
>> even creating an excess,
>
> Already happens, fairly regularally in CA based on news reports.
> Midday wholesale electric rates often go negative (electricy suppliers
> will pay you to use electricity).
>
>> while all the ones in this system would need energy at the same time
>> (night) driving the price up, therefore again, needing some kind of
>> storage.
>
> This is the current kink. There is often enough abundance midday that
> the price is negative (or generation is curtailed because it has no
> sink into which to go). Nighttime, however, is a very different story.
>
> Reality is, given current tech., pricing, and installed base, some form
> of "base generation" using existing tech. (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro)
> is required to last through the nights (and the 'days of overcast' that
> sometimes happen). Only two of the four are 'carbon free' and only one
> is suitable for use in geographic areas without significant volumes of
> water running downhill.

I agree.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 01:08:41 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, Musk sells gigantic lithium batteries
>>>
>>> I'm waiting for more accurate information but there is a rumor Musk may
>>> pivot to hydrogen. Great, another technology with no supporting
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, Toyota would celebrate! I think they are still clinging to hydrogen.
>
> Unless there's been some new exotic materials discovered that solves
> the hydrogen embrittement problem, hydrogen on a large scale will
> either be very very expensive for the pipe/bottle replacements needed,
> or will simply create a different sort of "bomb" (vs. a lithum battery
> fire) sitting next door.

This is what my friendly neighbourhood AI had to say about it (caveat
emptor!):

The choice of materials for tanks, pipelines, and other storage systems is
crucial. Hydrogen can cause embrittlement in metals, leading to cracks and
leaks. Therefore, materials that are resistant to hydrogen embrittlement
must be used. Common choices include:

High-strength steel: Often used for high-pressure tanks.

Composite materials: These can provide lightweight options with good
resistance to hydrogen.

Non-metallic materials: Such as certain plastics that do not suffer
from embrittlement.

2. Storage Methods

Hydrogen can be stored in various forms, each with its own safety
considerations:

Compressed Gas Storage: Hydrogen is stored at high pressures
(typically 350-700 bar). This requires robust pressure vessels designed to
withstand these conditions without leaking or failing.

Liquid Hydrogen Storage: At extremely low temperatures (-253°C),
hydrogen becomes liquid. This method requires insulated cryogenic tanks to
maintain low temperatures and prevent vaporization.

Metal Hydrides: Some metals can absorb hydrogen at certain conditions,
forming metal hydrides. This method allows for safer storage at lower
pressures but requires careful handling during charging and discharging.

What about storing it as water, and producing it close to where cars need
to be fueled up? I assume it would be very inefficient and probably
difficult, or else someone would already have done it. But I do not know
any specifics, so just genuinely curious.

> A better 'solution' (although the catalyst tech may not yet exist) is
> some form of electrically driven catalyst that could extract CO2 from
> the air and synthesize some form of liquid fuel (liquid at STP). Then
> solar PV would have a "sink" for their extra energy, and the
> synthesized liquid fuel could be stored in normal non-pressure vessels,
> piped/transported via the existing liquid fuel infrastructure, and
> 'burned' at a location remote from the synthesis to "move energy
> around".
>
> Of course the rabid greenies would see "burn fuel to make electricity"
> as bad, even if the fuel being burned was synthesized via Solar PV
> energy and atmospheric CO2 (plus likely water input as well, since one
> tends to need some hydrocarbon bonds to create a fuel that is liquid at
> STP).
>

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:58:38 +0100, D wrote:

> Wow, Toyota would celebrate! I think they are still clinging to
> hydrogen.

Toyota never bought into BEVs and favored hybrids. The Mirai is impressive
but it points out the problem at this time.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/toyota-sued-over-lack-of-
hydrogen-availability-for-fuel-cell-cars-in-california/2-1-1676965

"A class action lawsuit alleges false advertising and misrepresentation
over promises that H2 refuelling stations would be widely available"

Hydrogen will need a real PR campaign. A company I worked for had a
contract to produce the glass tubes for strobe lights. It was a glass
blowing operation to form the corkscrew shape. Soda glass can be worked
with oxy-acetylene but quartz glass needs a oxy-hydrogen flame. We had to
get a permit to have a hydrogen tube trailer spotted on the premises
despite hydrogen being safer than acetylene. I could see the fire marshall
thinking 'bomb' when we said 'hydrogen'.

The tanks have improved. In the '70s the weight of hydrogen in a tube
trailer was ridiculously small compared to the wieght of the trailer. New
materials reduce the tank weights and the DOT has increased the allowable
pressure but it's still a transportation problem.

Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing natural
gas rather than green alternative energy sources.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 21:54:19 +0100, D wrote:

> Liquid Hydrogen Storage: At extremely low temperatures (-253°C),
> hydrogen becomes liquid. This method requires insulated cryogenic tanks
> to maintain low temperatures and prevent vaporization.

For the glassblowing operation we used LOX rather than conventional
welding tanks. That was no problem but hydrogen is a whole different game.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:12:47 +0100, D wrote:

> Is the grid prepared for this working at scale? And it seems to me that
> all solar would "sell" at the same time, driving down the price to zero
> or even creating an excess, while all the ones in this system would need
> energy at the same time (night) driving the price up, therefore again,
> needing some kind of storage.

I can't say with certainty but my impression from what I've read is the
idea is straight from Cloud Cuckoo Land as far as small residential
installations go.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
> What about storing it as water, and producing it close to where cars need
> to be fueled up? I assume it would be very inefficient and probably
> difficult, or else someone would already have done it. But I do not know
> any specifics, so just genuinely curious.

Hydrogen can be stored very safely as water. The earth's covered in a
significant amount of "water stored hydrogen". :)

The tricky part is you have to put in a rather significant amount of
energy to convince it (the hydrogen) to let go of it's grip with the
oxygen atoms that make up the water.

And once you create it, and pump it into the car's pressure tank
(you'll need a pressure vessel unless the car has a cryo-cooler on
board, and the energy expended by the cryo-cooler would dwarf the
energy needed to propel the car), you are right back to the
'embrittlement' problem again.

And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
combusting as part of the pressure release.

Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.

On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
> combusting as part of the pressure release.

I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.

> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.

<shudder>

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> We had to > get a permit to have a hydrogen tube trailer spotted on the
> premises despite hydrogen being safer than acetylene. I could see the
> fire marshall thinking 'bomb' when we said 'hydrogen'.

I guess there aren't that many people left who would automatically think
"Hindenburg".

> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing natural
> gas rather than green alternative energy sources.

Local politicians seem to conveniently forget that the energy needed to
produce liquefied natural gas for export (let someone else actually create
the pollution by burning it) is going to take half of our formerly-abundant
hydro power resources.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 12/8/24 3:18 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 01:08:41 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Well, Musk sells gigantic lithium batteries
>
> I'm waiting for more accurate information but there is a rumor Musk may
> pivot to hydrogen. Great, another technology with no supporting
> infrastructure.

Heh heh :-)

Hydrogen is DIFFICULT to deal with in a number
of dimensions. You're right in that there's
really NO sort of infrastructure for it either.

However, at an "industrial site", creation+storage+
use might not be THAT difficult an equation.

However to get good efficiency you couldn't burn
the hydrogen - huge FUEL CELLS would be required.
Even then, considerable loss.

Anyway, NOT gonna park an H2 powered vehicle
anywhere NEAR my house.

I'd suggested a little farm of maybe 5-10 meter
radial-fiber based flywheels. Those ARE do-able
and you'd be able to get back MOST of the energy
put in. There always IS a danger of "rapid
unscheduled disassembly" with those however, hence
my advice to kinda BURY them a bit.

Mag bearings ... they oughtta last 50+ years and
are basically much lower, more robust, tech than
fuel cells. Who needs hydrogen when you've got
rotational inertia ?

Cars ? Frankly isopropanol would be a GREAT
low-polluting fuel, and less hydroscopic
than methanol or ethanol. CHEAP ways to make
it ... that's for the catalyst people to
figure out. It WOULD work with the existing
infrastructure with only a few gasket mods.

On 12/8/24 7:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>
> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
> And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.

I've seen that too - close up. Blew out a reinforced
CBC wall ...... sheer dumb luck nobody was in the
filling room at the time or they'd have been Spam.

>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>
> <shudder>
>

High-pressure containers - esp ones that have to
'cycle' often - are a bomb waiting to go off.
Fatigue/corrosion take their awful toll - then
BOOM !

If the boom is a flammable gas ... far worse.

Hydrogen CAN have its uses - but at "industrial"
sites, not out in public. You can feed it into
expensive fuel cells, you can mix x-percent with
natural gas.

But as a general-purpose 'motor fuel' ... NO !
Besides, no proper infrastructure for it.

On 12/8/24 1:25 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/12/2024 16:18, Rich wrote:
>> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Modern flywheels - super-sized - COULD store rather a lot of
>>>    energy.  However you'd need to bury them a little Just In Case.
>>
>> The physics of flywheels begin to bite you in the a** when you start
>> trying to "supersize" them for storage of significant amounts of
>> energy.  You need exotic super strong materials (read as: "super
>> costly" and/or "does not exist yet") to prevent them from pulling
>> themselves apart rather explosively.
>
> Exactly. Sentences like "COULD store rather a lot of energy." are simple
> hand-wavey nonsense,.

Nah ... not entirely.

The modern take isn't a big ring of steel - but closer
to the 'wire brush' you see on cheapo grinding machines.

However the 'wire' is well organized carbon/graphite/nanotube
fibers spinning in a vacuum. It's incredibly strong - and if
one or two fibers break it's not such a huge deal. The whole
thing spins on mag bearings and there are magnets/coils not far
from the axle that serve as booster/generators.

In short, DO-able ... and NOT insanely expensive. CAN hold
rather a LOT of energy too.

>
> The UK to be fully 'renewable' for example would need to store the sort
> of energy  found in half a dozen medium sized strategic nuclear bombs.

Um ... probably more.

> However you do that, its damned risky - hydrogen - spinning flywheels -
> hydro dams, batteries.
>
> In fact the safest  energy store capable of doing it is a set of
> uranium/plutonium fuel rods. And then you don't need any renewable shit
> at all.
>
> Simples!

Nuke reactors CAN indeed be very good. The TRICK is in
making them accident/terrorist-proof. "Pebble bed" is
pretty "-proof" - and according to some news China is
building a number of such plants. Thermodynamically
the 'hot' reactors seem more favorable and the US/EU
is tilting that way (a mistake imho).

There's STILL the issue of dealing with the nuke waste.
Takes ten forevers for it to decay. The French actually
encapsulate and store it AT the plant site. For others
like the USA, a bunker in the center of large military
bases might be better - you can keep an eye on it and
have thousands of soldiers as guards.

As for the ever-promised 'fusion' ... at this point
I'm gonna say "FORGET IT". The only places to even
get a speck over energy input are gigantic laser
facilities. It's not PRACTICAL in the least with
anything remotely like our current sci-tech.

My FEAR is that somebody will figure out some
Stupid Quantum Trick to flip matter into antimatter,
and convert like a kilogram during the test :-)

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 00:07:04 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> However to get good efficiency you couldn't burn the hydrogen - huge
> FUEL CELLS would be required.
> Even then, considerable loss.

It has infrastructure problems but Toyota's fuel cell vehicle is feasible.
Excluding catastrophic tank failure I don't think hydrogen would be more
of a problem than propane.

On 12/8/24 7:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> We had to > get a permit to have a hydrogen tube trailer spotted on the
>> premises despite hydrogen being safer than acetylene. I could see the
>> fire marshall thinking 'bomb' when we said 'hydrogen'.
>
> I guess there aren't that many people left who would automatically think
> "Hindenburg".
>
>> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing natural
>> gas rather than green alternative energy sources.
>
> Local politicians seem to conveniently forget that the energy needed to
> produce liquefied natural gas for export (let someone else actually create
> the pollution by burning it) is going to take half of our formerly-abundant
> hydro power resources.

Awwww ... did somebody fail to mention that ? :-)

How puzzling .......

This entire field has been horribly contaminated
by politics/ideology/fanaticsm. Expect NO sane
solutions.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing natural
> gas rather than green alternative energy sources.
>

Very interesting! Had no idea! I find it funny that this is somehow never
meantioned by the green crowd.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:12:47 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Is the grid prepared for this working at scale? And it seems to me that
>> all solar would "sell" at the same time, driving down the price to zero
>> or even creating an excess, while all the ones in this system would need
>> energy at the same time (night) driving the price up, therefore again,
>> needing some kind of storage.
>
> I can't say with certainty but my impression from what I've read is the
> idea is straight from Cloud Cuckoo Land as far as small residential
> installations go.
>

I did some research and calculation of how much it would cost with
hydrogen storage for a solar powered house in sweden, and 10 years ago, I
found a pilot project in northern sweden, and the cost was about 1 million
EUR (give or take).

A couple of months ago I had a look around, and the cost as far as I could
estimate, for storage, had dropped to about 500k EUR.

If the decrease in cost continues, it would become feasible with solar in
sweden in about 12-20 years time if you're doing it as a hobby.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> What about storing it as water, and producing it close to where cars need
>> to be fueled up? I assume it would be very inefficient and probably
>> difficult, or else someone would already have done it. But I do not know
>> any specifics, so just genuinely curious.
>
> Hydrogen can be stored very safely as water. The earth's covered in a
> significant amount of "water stored hydrogen". :)
>
> The tricky part is you have to put in a rather significant amount of
> energy to convince it (the hydrogen) to let go of it's grip with the
> oxygen atoms that make up the water.
>
> And once you create it, and pump it into the car's pressure tank
> (you'll need a pressure vessel unless the car has a cryo-cooler on
> board, and the energy expended by the cryo-cooler would dwarf the
> energy needed to propel the car), you are right back to the
> 'embrittlement' problem again.
>
> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>
> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.

But how is this solved in existing hydrogen cars? Hydrogen cars exist, so
surely they must have some way to at least mitigate this problem?

As for converting hydrogen "on site" I can imagine two limiting factors.

1. The speed of conversion. Can you convert hydrogen on site, fast enough,
to fill up a car in 5-10 minutes?

and

2. The cost of converting water to hydrogen in a smaller setup, vs doing
it somewhere central and shipping it.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>
> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
> And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.

How did this happen? In sweden, there is an epidemic of bombings for the
past couple of years, since crazy drug dealing arabians are waging some
kind of war with hand grenades, and car battery bombs in the bigger
cities.

Would using scuba tanks be a cheaper way for them to bomb each other?

Also, how does a car battery bomb work? I'ev seen videos of exploding
lithium batteries, but that does not look as efficient to me as just
producing good, old, gun powder at home and making your own.

So with that in mind, what would be the advantage of a car battery bomb
over regular gun powder plus a pipe?

>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>
> <shudder>
>
>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-12-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> We had to > get a permit to have a hydrogen tube trailer spotted on the
>> premises despite hydrogen being safer than acetylene. I could see the
>> fire marshall thinking 'bomb' when we said 'hydrogen'.
>
> I guess there aren't that many people left who would automatically think
> "Hindenburg".
>
>> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing natural
>> gas rather than green alternative energy sources.
>
> Local politicians seem to conveniently forget that the energy needed to
> produce liquefied natural gas for export (let someone else actually create
> the pollution by burning it) is going to take half of our formerly-abundant
> hydro power resources.

This is not a local sickness among politicians. In sweden, the politicians
were all hyped about creating "green steel" asking the government owned
(or part owner, don't remember exactly) steel company to "do it"!

The problem?

They would need their own personal nuclear powerplant to do it, since it
would require half of swedens total electricity generation capacity to
create said "green steel". ;)

Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
nuclear power in 10 years.

I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.

On 09/12/2024 09:51, D wrote:
> So with that in mind, what would be the advantage of a car battery bomb
> over regular gun powder plus a pipe?
It's easier and legal to get a car battery.

These gentlemen are not very scientific.
Making gunpowder from chickenshit is quite complex.

Did you know that acetone - a highly useful solvent used extensively by
people who make glass fibre components, is also used by people who brew
up and purify various drugs. Beware ordering a gallon of it...
The IRA used ammonium nitrate, because it was at that time a legal
fertilizer. Today it is controlled and comes mixed with something that
stops it going bang.

We used to use sodium chlorate - a weedkiller that is now also banned

Terrorist and criminals use what they can get their hands on

Only the government gets to use the good stuff.

--
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
– Will Durant

On 09/12/2024 09:53, D wrote:
> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
> nuclear power in 10 years.
>
> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.

I'm not so sure.
At the moment Rolls Royce is going through the red tape box ticking
exercise on their reactors.
They want to deploy the first ones by 2030.
The Czech Republic is working with RR on this as well

There is a huge potential market for the first companies to put together
scalable small modular reactors that are in mass production.

Build your concrete structures, pop in a boiler and turbines and some
generators and ship a complete reactor in, and plug it in to a factory
produced control system, and that's it.

5 years top's is the aim

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 09/12/2024 09:44, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing
>> natural
>> gas rather than green alternative energy sources.
>>
>
> Very interesting! Had no idea! I find it funny that this is somehow
> never meantioned by the green crowd.

The theory is that surplus electricity can be used to make hydrogen by
electrolysis.

This is of course far more expensive than natural gas, but since when
have and EcoCrap™ merchants ever bothered to take their sock s off and
learn to count beyond ten anyway? The government will pay for it!

It all goes back to the fraudulent EU and its compact with German
manufacturers to mandate 'Renewable energy' *whether it worked or not*.

The same goes for BEVS heat pumps, smart meters and all the other crap

If they had simply taxed carbon fuels we would be all nuclear by
now...and be making synthetic diesel

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone