2030 no new diesel vans. What's your plan?

[Gromett]

OK Gromett Definitions are needed the comment made makes it all seem so simple yet it is far from so, whatever alternate energy system is being used a deep understanding both Physics and Chemistry is required for R&D this comes primarily from research and then spun out commercially. This is in addition to Material Science nothing about alternative fuels is basic other than how something may be described which is normally done by an expert in a field that simplifies something that is complex to make it understandable by the masses (me included), I am not a Chemist, Physicist or Material Scientist and i do not think you are either but have expertise and qualifications in other areas.

The definitions:

a) Chemistry: The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.

b) Physics: The scientific study of matter and energy and the effect that they have on each other

c) Material Science: The interdisciplinary field of materials science, also commonly termed materials science and engineering, is the design and discovery of new materials, particularly solids.

So suddenly this starts looking more complex which I am sure you would agree, as you also agree that Hydrogen can be used as an energy source it means it can be used for transport which has also been proved, the view your holding is that Batteries are king....maybe, maybe not. We have Petrol, Diesel, LPG, electric and hydrogen powered cars Lorries trains and power plants.

Its a Mix and the world is a better place for not just having one form of power lets see what the future holds my belief is that Hydrogen will have a place, market forces (politics and investors) will influence what is available how and when.

Its all complex and as I say nothing is forever not even Batteries

I am probably more familiar with the sciences and engineering than you give me credit for. I was relying on physics for my claim about Hydrogen being 2-3 times more expensive than direct charging.

A 100% efficient electrolyser would consume 39.4 kilowatt-hours per kilogram (142 MJ/kg) of hydrogen. This is based on the laws of physics. The hydrogen atoms are bonded to oxygen atoms, it takes a specific amount of energy minimum to break this bond (260 kJ per mole of water).
The maximum theoretical energy efficiency of a fuel cell is 83%, operating at low power density and using pure hydrogen and oxygen as reactants. Yes you can get a higher efficiency in a combined heat/power system but that is not practical for vehicles only for stationary large scale systems.

These are physical limitations dictated by the universe. Not matters of opinion or subject to development. These are the figures in a 100% efficient system which is just not possible.

So if you developed a perfect electrolyser and a perfect fuel cell. You would put 39.4KWh of electric in to get 1KG of hydrogen out.
You then put that 1KG of hydrogen into your perfect fuel cell along with pure oxygen, you would get 32KWh back out.

That is in a perfect system with zero losses, no other costs and no other processes required.

In the real world the efficiency of an electrolyser even the best experimental ones are now hitting the 80% mark. However, further energy is then required to compress the hydrogen OR to cryogenically chill it to liquefy it. Then you have to transport it using more electric.

In the car, the BEST we can reach today is 70% efficiency in a fuel cell which is incredible. The rest is wasted as heat. Unless you can figure out a way to utilise that excess heat to create electricity efficiently in a compact way without adding weight to the car this is likely close to where we can get with FC efficiency. These most efficient ones using Alkaline technology require temperatures of 60-70°C and you have to pre-heat them before you can use them, this is more electricity wasted.

So lets take the best case experimental electrolyser and Fuel cell at the moment and ignore compression/chilling and transport costs.

We will use 80% for the electrolyser and 70% for the Fuel cell.

100KWh hours go into the system and you get 80% out of the electrolyser so 80KWh worth of hydrogen. (not compressed or chilled or transported) We then put this straight into a fuel cell.
You get 70% of that 80KWh leaving you with 56KWh.

This is where I get the figures for 2-3 times more expensive. Even if you don't compress/chill/transport the hydrogen it is close to double the cost. My 2-3 times more expensive is me erring on the conservative side. In real terms it will likely be 5+ times more expensive.

That means filling a Hyundai Nexo’s 6.33kg tank will have used at least 249KWh of electric to generate if done at 100% efficiency and didn't need compressing or chilling. This will give you 414 miles of range. In reality it would have used about double that once you take all the other factors and processes into account. But let's play the 100% efficiency game for hydrogen for a bit longer.

A tesla model 3 long range will do around 300 miles in pretty good conditions (it is specced at 348 miles range). But let's take half the battery off because it is winter and no one likes Tesla. So at 174 miles with a 75KWh battery...

For a direct comparison we need to convert to KWh per mile.
Telsa model 3 long range 75KWh / 174 miles (worst case) = 431 Wh per mile.
Nexo 249KWh / 414 miles (in a perfect universe with no losses) = 601 Wh per mile.

In my example here I have not added the electric need to compress and chill the hydrogen, I have not added the cost of recovering the investment of the hydrogen electrolysers or filling stations, I have not added the cost of transporting the hydrogen. Add these all in and the situation for hydrogen looks dire.

That 601 Wh per mile for the Nexo in the real world is likely to be well over 1,000 Wh per mile. The Model 3 figure is likely to be a hell of a lot lower. I beat the crap out of the Tesla and gave the hydrogen every possible advantage even some that just can't happen in the real world.

So there you have it, from Physics, Thermodynamics and some maths to prove my point categorically.

That took quite a bit of time for me to write up, so I would appreciate you doing me the courtesy of reading it and pointing specifically to where I am wrong on the science? Where I got the calculations wrong? And why you think this situation is going to change to make hydrogen practical for cars, vans and most lorries on UK roads? Please don't give me a waffly answer about research this or university that. I have given you science and maths and not pointed you to any other sources to back my position. Now you don't know me, but you might be surprised to know I love being proven wrong on stuff like this. If you can prove me wrong using science and maths and not just nit pick I will be extremely excited and would happily buy you a beer. But if you just waffle and digress to avoid the point, well that's another matter.

 

[duane0001]

Kids listening to Chris Rea, Driving home for Christmas in 2050,

Dad, what’s a tailpipe?

 

[Gromett]

Coolcats Not sure if you saw my last post?

 

[Manxcat]

Kids listening to Chris Rea, Driving home for Christmas in 2050,

Dad, what’s a tailpipe?

What is a tailpipe? Something like my exhaust?

 

[68c]

For a direct comparison we need to convert to KWh per mile.
Telsa model 3 long range 75KWh / 174 miles (worst case) = 431 Watts per mile.
Nexo 249KWh / 414 miles (in a perfect universe with no losses) = 601 Watts per mile.

Is that supposed to be 431 Watts, or 431 Watt/hrs? Not a criticism just trying to understand the units.

I understood a Watt is a unit of power, a Watt/hr that of energy or work done.

To discuss how much power?/energy? it takes to drive the mile do we not have a constant amperage at a constant voltage (thus a constant wattage) for the time period to cover that mile. Do we not need to include the time factor?

I only have a schoolboy knowledge of these things, from your post you obviously have a better grasp of these things. Please help sort out my probably muddled thinking.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

I am probably more familiar with the sciences and engineering than you give me credit for. I was relying on physics for my claim about Hydrogen being 2-3 times more expensive than direct charging.

A 100% efficient electrolyser would consume 39.4 kilowatt-hours per kilogram (142 MJ/kg) of hydrogen. This is based on the laws of physics. The hydrogen atoms are bonded to oxygen atoms, it takes a specific amount of energy minimum to break this bond (260 kJ per mole of water).
The maximum theoretical energy efficiency of a fuel cell is 83%, operating at low power density and using pure hydrogen and oxygen as reactants. Yes you can get a higher efficiency in a combined heat/power system but that is not practical for vehicles only for stationary large scale systems.

These are physical limitations dictated by the universe. Not matters of opinion or subject to development. These are the figures in a 100% efficient system which is just not possible.

So if you developed a perfect electrolyser and a perfect fuel cell. You would put 39.4KWh of electric in to get 1KG of hydrogen out.
You then put that 1KG of hydrogen into your perfect fuel cell along with pure oxygen, you would get 32KWh back out.

That is in a perfect system with zero losses, no other costs and no other processes required.

In the real world the efficiency of an electrolyser even the best experimental ones are now hitting the 80% mark. However, further energy is then required to compress the hydrogen OR to cryogenically chill it to liquefy it. Then you have to transport it using more electric.

In the car, the BEST we can reach today is 70% efficiency in a fuel cell which is incredible. The rest is wasted as heat. Unless you can figure out a way to utilise that excess heat to create electricity efficiently in a compact way without adding weight to the car this is likely close to where we can get with FC efficiency. These most efficient ones using Alkaline technology require temperatures of 60-70°C and you have to pre-heat them before you can use them, this is more electricity wasted.

So lets take the best case experimental electrolyser and Fuel cell at the moment and ignore compression/chilling and transport costs.

We will use 80% for the electrolyser and 70% for the Fuel cell.

100KWh hours go into the system and you get 80% out of the electrolyser so 80KWh worth of hydrogen. (not compressed or chilled or transported) We then put this straight into a fuel cell.
You get 70% of that 80KWh leaving you with 56KWh.

This is where I get the figures for 2-3 times more expensive. Even if you don't compress/chill/transport the hydrogen it is close to double the cost. My 2-3 times more expensive is me erring on the conservative side. In real terms it will likely be 5+ times more expensive.

That means filling a Hyundai Nexo’s 6.33kg tank will have used at least 249KWh of electric to generate if done at 100% efficiency and didn't need compressing or chilling. This will give you 414 miles of range. In reality it would have used about double that once you take all the other factors and processes into account. But let's play the 100% efficiency game for hydrogen for a bit longer.

A tesla model 3 long range will do around 300 miles in pretty good conditions (it is specced at 348 miles range). But let's take half the battery off because it is winter and no one likes Tesla. So at 174 miles with a 75KWh battery...

For a direct comparison we need to convert to KWh per mile.
Telsa model 3 long range 75KWh / 174 miles (worst case) = 431 Watts per mile.
Nexo 249KWh / 414 miles (in a perfect universe with no losses) = 601 Watts per mile.

In my example here I have not added the electric need to compress and chill the hydrogen, I have not added the cost of recovering the investment of the hydrogen electrolysers or filling stations, I have not added the cost of transporting the hydrogen. Add these all in and the situation for hydrogen looks dire.

That 601 watts per mile for the Nexo in the real world is likely to be well over 1,000 Watts per mile. The Model 3 figure is likely to be a hell of a lot lower. I beat the crap out of the Tesla and gave the hydrogen every possible advantage even some that just can't happen in the real world.

So there you have it, from Physics, Thermodynamics and some maths to prove my point categorically.

That took quite a bit of time for me to write up, so I would appreciate you doing me the courtesy of reading it and pointing specifically to where I am wrong on the science? Where I got the calculations wrong? And why you think this situation is going to change to make hydrogen practical for cars, vans and most lorries on UK roads? Please don't give me a waffly answer about research this or university that. I have given you science and maths and not pointed you to any other sources to back my position. Now you don't know me, but you might be surprised to know I love being proven wrong on stuff like this. If you can prove me wrong using science and maths and not just nit pick I will be extremely excited and would happily buy you a beer. But if you just waffle and digress to avoid the point, well that's another matter.

Hello Gromett, a few things, the first is that you have not shown your source, the next is I cannot see your maths or calculations I am assuming you have read up on the internet and then posted. I don't mind this but if you could share where you picked up the information you are using then it is easier to retort

 

[Gromett]

Is that supposed to be 431 Watts, or 431 Watt/hrs? Not a criticism just trying to understand the units.

I understood a Watt is a unit of power, a Watt/hr that of energy or work done.

To discuss how much power?/energy? it takes to drive the mile do we not have a constant amperage at a constant voltage (thus a constant wattage) for the time period to cover that mile. Do we not need to include the time factor?

I only have a schoolboy knowledge of these things, from your post you obviously have a better grasp of these things. Please help sort out my probably muddled thinking.

You are of course correct, I made a mistake there, it should of course have been Wh not watts. It gets on my tits when professional journalist make this mistake and I should know better. My apologies.

As for power vs energy. Power is the instant rating (watts) and energy is the total energy consumed/stored, in the case batteries Watt hours, or Amp hours (Wh). So you measure the power of a motor and the energy stored in a battery. Although the power output of a battery is important. If it can only produce 10 watts of power at 400v that is on 4Kw of power which is not enough to drive say a 100Kw motor.

In a DC system you don't need to consider amps or volts as these are directly proportional to Watts. A watt is simply the voltage multiplied by the amps. If the voltage is fixed or has a nominal value in the case of a battery you can simply divide the watts by the voltage to get the amps.

 

[Gromett]

Hello Gromett, a few things, the first is that you have not shown your source, the next is I cannot see your maths or calculations I am assuming you have read up on the internet and then posted. I don't mind this but if you could share where you picked up the information you are using then it is easier to retort

1st up my maths is there if you read it. Secondly all of my post was derived from a single fact. The amount of energy to get 1KG of hydrogen from water. You could google to check this fact if you wanted.
All my calculation are derived myself. I have not read it on the internet then reposted here. I did the maths myself. It isn't difficult, it is not calculus or geometry, just simply arithmetic.

Any other info is publicly available. For instance for the Nexo fuel tank size I just went to their website and looked. I needed to know the size of a hydrogen fuel tank in a car and it's range. The Nexo was chosen because it is the most recent Hydrogen car. I have been following this stuff for years and have a very good memory for stuff like this so although I do have a reference database I can resort to in this case I didn't need to do too much looking up on the internet.

If there is any particular part of my post you don't understand or want a source for let me know I am more than happy to help.

Here is one source for my 39.4KWh to get 1KG of hydrogen at 100% efficiency. You may find the rest of the article extremely informative;

At 100% efficiency, electrolysis would require close to 40 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen—a number derived from the higher heating value of hydrogen, a physical property. However, today’s systems have an efficiency of about 60-70%, with the DOE’s future target at 75%.

First Analysis of the Water Requirements of a Hydrogen Economy

One of the touted benefits of the futuristic US hydrogen economy is that the hydrogen supply—in the form of water—is virtually limitless. This assumption is taken for granted so much that no major study has fully considered just how much water a sustainable hydrogen economy would need.

phys.org

 

[Coolcats]

1st up my maths is there if you read it. Secondly all of my post was derived from a single fact. The amount of energy to get 1KG of hydrogen from water. You could google to check this fact if you wanted.
All my calculation are derived myself. I have not read it on the internet then reposted here. I did the maths myself. It isn't difficult, it is not calculus or geometry, just simply arithmetic.

Any other info is publicly available. For instance for the Nexo fuel tank size I just went to their website and looked. I needed to know the size of a hydrogen fuel tank in a car and it's range. The Nexo was chosen because it is the most recent Hydrogen car. I have been following this stuff for years and have a very good memory for stuff like this so although I do have a reference database I can resort to in this case I didn't need to do too much looking up on the internet.

If there is any particular part of my post you don't understand or want a source for let me know I am more than happy to help.

Here is one source for my 39.4KWh to get 1KG of hydrogen at 100% efficiency. You may find the rest of the article extremely informative;

First Analysis of the Water Requirements of a Hydrogen Economy

One of the touted benefits of the futuristic US hydrogen economy is that the hydrogen supply—in the form of water—is virtually limitless. This assumption is taken for granted so much that no major study has fully considered just how much water a sustainable hydrogen economy would need.

phys.org

I guess that's my point Gromett you have used arithmetic,I note the article you have used dates back to 2007 (so a little out of date). The physics for production of Hydrogen have changed (Physics/Material Sciences) as the aim is to produce cheap Hydrogen or at least make it no more costly than Carbon based Fuels.

Now I respect that you can work out the cost of X or Y. I will not be surprised if the Physicists and Material Scientists do not continue to come up with a more effective (cheaper) way of splitting Hydrogen, the work is clearly underway and is important as it will provide a source of cheap alternate energy. The Australian work undertaken by and being commercialised by UNSW is showing this along with the University of Houston (and others)

I do get what your saying and the argument used, however there is a distinct possibility by 2030 of Hydrogen powered vehicles becoming available as the cost of production and storage continues to fall.

Here is one article for you:

Non-noble metal-nitride based electrocatalysts for highperformance alkaline seawater electrolysis (2019)

Abstract​

Seawater is one of the most abundant natural resources on our planet. Electrolysis of seawater is not only a promising approach to produce clean hydrogen energy, but also of great significance to seawater desalination. The implementation of seawater electrolysis requires robust and efficient electrocatalysts that can sustain seawater splitting without chloride corrosion, especially for the anode. Here we report a three-dimensional core-shell metal-nitride catalyst consisting of NiFeN nanoparticles uniformly decorated on NiMoN nanorods supported on Ni foam, which serves as an eminently active and durable oxygen evolution reaction catalyst for alkaline seawater electrolysis. Combined with an efficient hydrogen evolution reaction catalyst of NiMoN nanorods, we have achieved the industrially required current densities of 500 and 1000 mA cm−2 at record low voltages of 1.608 and 1.709 V, respectively, for overall alkaline seawater splitting at 60 °C. This discovery significantly advances the development of seawater electrolysis for large-scale hydrogen production.

Scientists find cheaper way to make Hydrogen out of water (2019)

Abstract​

Efficient generation of hydrogen from water-splitting is an underpinning chemistry to realize the hydrogen economy. Low cost, transition metals such as nickel and iron-based oxides/hydroxides have been regarded as promising catalysts for the oxygen evolution reaction in alkaline media with overpotentials as low as ~200 mV to achieve 10 mA cm−2, however, they are generally unsuitable for the hydrogen evolution reaction. Herein, we show a Janus nanoparticle catalyst with a nickel–iron oxide interface and multi-site functionality for a highly efficient hydrogen evolution reaction with a comparable performance to the benchmark platinum on carbon catalyst. Density functional theory calculations reveal that the hydrogen evolution reaction catalytic activity of the nanoparticle is induced by the strong electronic coupling effect between the iron oxide and the nickel at the interface. Remarkably, the catalyst also exhibits extraordinary oxygen evolution reaction activity, enabling an active and stable bi-functional catalyst for whole cell water-splitting with, to the best of our knowledge, the highest energy efficiency (83.7%) reported to date.

Now this is a piece of work that may have implication for older vehicles in the future but it may also be too costly but if a vehicle could be retrofitted it may just help older vehicles (MoHo's) stray on the road much longer without being penalised for emissions but more work as this paper outlines needs to be done.

A Review of Hydrogen Direct Injection for Internal Combustion Engines: Towards Carbon-Free Combustion (2019)

Abstract:

A paradigm shift towards the utilization of carbon-neutral and low emission fuels is necessary in the internal combustion engine industry to fulfil the carbon emission goals and future legislation requirements in many countries. Hydrogen as an energy carrier and main fuel is a promising option due to its carbon-free content, wide flammability limits and fast flame speeds. For spark-ignited internal combustion engines, utilizing hydrogen direct injection has been proven to achieve high engine power output and efficiency with low emissions. This review provides an overview of the current development and understanding of hydrogen use in internal combustion engines that are usually spark ignited, under various engine operation modes and strategies. This paper then proceeds to outline the gaps in current knowledge, along with better potential strategies and technologies that could be adopted for hydrogen direct injection in the context of compression-ignition engine applications—topics that have not yet been extensively explored to date with hydrogen but have shown advantages with compressed natural gas.

I would be surprised if Hydrogen is not used in light vehicles in the future and that is where I am going to leave the discussion as we are now well off beam for the original topic

 

[Gromett]

The physics for production of Hydrogen have changed (Physics/Material Sciences) as the aim is to produce cheap Hydrogen or at least make it no more costly than Carbon based Fuels.

There you go... You genuinely don't seem to understand the difference between physics and material science. I won't even respond to rest of your post just this line as it encapsulates your misunderstanding perfectly I think.
The physics for the production of hydrogen by electrolysis haven't changed. Just the method by which it is improved.

The 39.4Kw per Kg is the physical minimum energy required to split water into Hydrogen and oxygen.
Materials sciences are what allow you to get close to the the physical limits.

It is impossible to get any better than 39.4KWh per 1KG of hydrogen. This is a limitation of physics and the fundamentals of the universe.

Let me try and explain in simple terms.


The bond that holds the 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom together is called a covalent bond. This bond has a specific strength that does not alter between water molecules. This is an absolute figure and has been measured extremely accurately.
You need a very specific minimum amount of energy to break this bond, if you apply less energy then the bond won't break at all.

In order to split H2O into H2 and O elements you need a level of energy in excess of that holding the two (or more) atoms together. This is a physical constant that cannot be "got around" or "engineered around" or "material scienced" around.

Currently the most efficient process for electrolysing water in a commercial setting uses 55KWh of electricity per KG. The difference between 39.4KW theoritical minimum required energy and 55KWh of electricity is the efficiency.
(39.4/55) x 100 = 71.64% efficient.

With material sciences it is possible to increase this efficiency by reducing that 55KWh required per KG. Lets say they find a process and material that allows them to get this down to 52KWh per KG which is a stretch but not totally impossible.
(39.4/52) x 100 = 75.77% efficient.

There is absolutely NO WAY to change the 39.4KWh or to get the current 55KWh down to 39.4KWh This is impossible. Not just impractical or unlikely, it is impossible. It is a basic law of thermodynamics.

I hope I have made this clear?

In my post above, I took that single immutable fundamental fact and did some basic arithmetic to show why hydrogen cars are not economically practical compared to EVs if you derive your hydrogen from electrolysis. The only way a hydrogen car makes any sense is if you use methane steam reforming and even then it is not much cheaper than petrol/diesel and you still have the CO2 problem.

You came back with another wooly post that doesn't go near the points I made in my original post. Can you try again now you know that 39.4KWh is the minimum required?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

I just re-read my above post and realised I may not have explained this very well nor have I given a reference.

Here is a quote from an online chemistry text book;

9.4 Strengths of Ionic and Covalent Bonds - Chemistry: Atoms First 2e | OpenStax

Stable molecules exist because covalent bonds hold the atoms together. We measure the strength of a covalent bond by the energy required to break it, th...

openstax.org

 

[Coolcats]

There you go... You genuinely don't seem to understand the difference between physics and material science. I won't even respond to rest of your post just this line as it encapsulates your misunderstanding perfectly I think.
The physics for the production of hydrogen by electrolysis haven't changed. Just the method by which it is improved.

The 39.4Kw per Kg is the physical minimum energy required to split water into Hydrogen and oxygen.
Materials sciences are what allow you to get close to the the physical limits.

It is impossible to get any better than 39.4KWh per 1KG of hydrogen. This is a limitation of physics and the fundamentals of the universe.

Let me try and explain in simple terms.


The bond that holds the 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom together is called a covalent bond. This bond has a specific strength that does not alter between water molecules. This is an absolute figure and has been measured extremely accurately.
You need a very specific minimum amount of energy to break this bond, if you apply less energy then the bond won't break at all.

In order to split H2O into H2 and O elements you need a level of energy in excess of that holding the two (or more) atoms together. This is a physical constant that cannot be "got around" or "engineered around" or "material scienced" around.

Currently the most efficient process for electrolysing water in a commercial setting uses 55KWh of electricity per KG. The difference between 39.4KW theoritical minimum required energy and 55KWh of electricity is the efficiency.
(39.4/55) x 100 = 71.64% efficient.

With material sciences it is possible to increase this efficiency by reducing that 55KWh required per KG. Lets say they find a process and material that allows them to get this down to 52KWh per KG which is a stretch but not totally impossible.
(39.4/52) x 100 = 75.77% efficient.

There is absolutely NO WAY to change the 39.4KWh or to get the current 55KWh down to 39.4KWh This is impossible. Not just impractical or unlikely, it is impossible. It is a basic law of thermodynamics.

I hope I have made this clear?

In my post above, I took that single immutable fundamental fact and did some basic arithmetic to show why hydrogen cars are not economically practical compared to EVs if you derive your hydrogen from electrolysis. The only way a hydrogen car makes any sense is if you use methane steam reforming and even then it is not much cheaper than petrol/diesel and you still have the CO2 problem.

You came back with another wooly post that doesn't go near the points I made in my original post. Can you try again now you know that 39.4KWh is the minimum required?

I guess you need to go and tell the universities, manufactures that they are all wasting their time with anything to do with Hydrogen. I am not arguing against your figures I am saying the commercial use of Hydrogen is becoming more and more realistic.

 

[Gromett]

I guess you need to go and tell the universities, manufactures that they are all wasting their time with anything to do with Hydrogen. I am not arguing against your figures I am saying the commercial use of Hydrogen is becoming more and more realistic.

The commercial use of hydrogen is going to be fantastic. I have never said there is no place for hydrogen. It is in fact a huge part of our future. You keep changing the subject and avoiding the very specific points I have made.

I have said specifically time and again that I cannot see it working for cars, vans and light to medium trucking. It is just not economically viable for that use case, not to mention it doesn't make sense from a physics and energy efficiency point of view.

The only reason you can buy hydrogen at all at the moment at prices similar to diesel and petrol is because it is made using steam reforming of natural gas and has a bi product of CO2.

 

[Gromett]

This is very interesting article written by a chemical engineer.

Is Hydrogen The Best Option To Replace Natural Gas In The Home? Looking At The Numbers - CleanTechnica

There's been a lot of talk recently about hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas. The scheme is to gradually add H2 to the natural gas grid, with the H2 being made from water using "excess" renewable electricity when it's available.

cleantechnica.com

The appendix backs up my point about 2-3x more expensive. But I recommend reading the full article as the compressor energy being 3x as much may not make much sense.

I had thought H2 was a good replacement for natural gas for some homes for the boiler/cooking. Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong.

APPENDIX:


Here’s the abbreviated logic behind why it takes 3× as much compressor energy to move a given amount of H2 LHV as to move the same number of J or BTU of natural gas LHV.


Where a and b are constants, different for each gas, but only a little different between H2 and natural gas, and r is the compression ratio i.e. P2/P1, P1 is the initial absolute pressure and V1 is the initial volume, the work of adiabatic compression is given by a formula of the following form:


W = a P1V1 (1-r(1/r)^b)


Per the ideal gas law, P1V1 = nRT1, where n is the number of moles of gas, R is the ideal gas constant, and T1 is the initial temperature.


Taking gases 1 and 2 of nearly equal values of a and b (to avoid getting results which vary with r), and taking them at the same initial pressure, volume and temperature, it can be shown that:


W1/W2 = ~ n1/n2


Hydrogen has a molar LHV of 240 kJ/mol, and a middle of the road natural gas might have a LHV of 695 kJ/mol. The work ratio is therefore ~2.9:1 for hydrogen versus natural gas, if we were to move a constant number of kJ of LHV per compression stroke, or per unit time.


The actual values of a and b (related to the Cp/Cv ratio) for H2 and natural gas at commercially significant compression ratios adjust this 2.9:1 ratio to about 3:1.

 

[Coolcats]

All very interesting Gromett, I can see you used BOC regarding the existing hydrogen production, cleary you have ignored the Australian project generating Hydrogen and selling this as an energy source at competitive prices. I never challenged how much energy comes from Hydrogen and regarding Material Science this 'just' enables the production to become more efficient quicker and cheaper, I never said you can get a quart out of a pint pot you seem to think I have.

I see you agree that Hydrogen does have commercial uses and that heavy trucks may use this, but once trucks start using this it is a power source for sale and should it be 'cheap enough' it is no leap of imagination that commercially becomes available for medium to light weight transport.

In the past who would have thought so many Deisel Cars would have been built, Diesel was the domain of the heavy truck, petrol was the first choice only Buses, Taxis Vans than as we know it became mass market for cars....but who would have ever thought it would be first choice for many along with the Dominating Audi R10 Diesel at Le-Mans who would have thought it back in the day.

Talking of Le-Mans there are no fewer than 5 teams interested in Hydrogen powered race cars "While the upcoming 2020 Hypercar Prototype regulations are the talk of the paddock in the FIA WEC right now, work in the background continues to progress on the implementation of hydrogen fuel cell technology in 2024" I can only assume that by 2030 we will see some Hydrogen powered delivery vehicles in some market sectors. It may take a bit longer but with the interest manufactures have, the developments taking place indicate this. and a broken record of it isn't going to happen does not reflect what interest and investment the industry is undertaking at the moment.

Who would have thought a Hydrogen powered LMP at Le-mans by 2024... the future is bright the future is Hydrogen (oh and lithium batteries )

Hydrogen tech progressing toward a zero-emissions Le Mans 24 Hours

While the upcoming 2020 Hypercar Prototype regulations are the talk of the paddock in the FIA WEC right now, work in the background continues to progress on the implementation of hydrogen fuel cell…

racer.com

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

All very interesting Gromett, I can see you used BOC regarding the existing hydrogen production, cleary you have ignored the Australian project generating Hydrogen and selling this as an energy source at competitive prices. I never challenged how much energy comes from Hydrogen and regarding Material Science this 'just' enables the production to become more efficient quicker and cheaper, I never said you can get a quart out of a pint pot you seem to think I have.

I never brought up BOC. You mention an Austrialian project but don't say which one or provide a reference? Is it steam reforming of Methane? Or is it using excess electric for hydrolysis? You did state categorically that you can get a quart out of a pint pot. You have also nicely changed the subject without answering.

I said this.

Keep posting about universities and research projects all you want. In the commercial and real world hydrogen just can't work for personal transport.

And then quoted this fact for you.

A 100% efficient electrolyser would consume 39.4 kilowatt-hours per kilogram (142 MJ/kg) of hydrogen. This is based on the laws of physics.

You then came back with this;

The physics for production of Hydrogen have changed

Which is you effectively saying that that can in actual fact get a pint out of a pint pot. The physics hasn't changed. The limit is still a minimum of 39.4KWh per KG of hydrogen.

Until you accept this fact, then we cannot move on with the debate. This is the core fact against which all other data is extrapolated.

I see you agree that Hydrogen does have commercial uses and that heavy trucks may use this, but once trucks start using this it is a power source for sale and should it be 'cheap enough' it is no leap of imagination that commercially becomes available for medium to light weight transport.

Here we go again. It will never be cheap enough. See the basic arithmetic in my previous post.

In the past who would have thought so many Deisel Cars would have been built, Diesel was the domain of the heavy truck, petrol was the first choice only Buses, Taxis Vans than as we know it became mass market for cars....but who would have ever thought it would be first choice for many along with the Dominating Audi R10 Diesel at Le-Mans who would have thought it back in the day.

Have a delve into economics and look up uncosted externalities and the tragedy of the commons. CO2 is an uncosted externality. Petrol and Diesel both come from the same pot and have the same issues. This is another diversion from the topic...

Talking of Le-Mans there are no fewer than 5 teams interested in Hydrogen powered race cars "While the upcoming 2020 Hypercar Prototype regulations are the talk of the paddock in the FIA WEC right now, work in the background continues to progress on the implementation of hydrogen fuel cell technology in 2024" I can only assume that by 2030 we will see some Hydrogen powered delivery vehicles in some market sectors. It may take a bit longer but with the interest manufactures have, the developments taking place indicate this. and a broken record of it isn't going to happen does not reflect what interest and investment the industry is undertaking at the moment.

Talking of Le-Mans??? Who was talking of Le-Mans? We were talking about cars used on the public road and whether hydrogen will ever work for it.


I am going to drag you back to the point, that you seem to keep wanting to get off of.

Hydrogen cannot work for cars/vans.

1. Hydrogen round trip is 2-3 times less efficient than batteries meaning you need 2-3 times more electric for cars/vans optimistically.
2. Hydrogen filling stations cost $1m-$3m to build. Where is this investment going to come from?
3. People are not going to buy Hydrogen cars until there is a filling infrastructure, are they?
4. Investors are not going to invest in a comprehensive hydrogen filling station network until there are enough cars to make a return on.
5. Hydrogen is more expensive than batteries. The cars are more expensive and they are more expensive to fuel.

You queried why it should be 2-3 times more expensive. I gave you the science and the maths. You then went off piste again.

So here is a couple of questions for you.
1) Do you accept now that at 100% efficiency it takes 39.4KWh to produce 1KG of hydrogen.
2) So you accept that it would therefore take 249KWh of electric to fill a 6.33kg hydrogen tank in a Hyundai Nexo.
3) Do you accept that the figure in 2 is unachievable because it would require 100% efficiency.
4) Do you further accept that this is without compressing or transporting the hydrogen?
5) Do you accept therefore that 249KWh per "fill" is likely half what will actually be required?

If you can answer those 5 questions at least, maybe we can make some progress on this fascinating debate.

 

[Coolcats]

Good to debate Gromett

Fist of all you will have noted that regarding your figures I have not challenged them, any fuel has an energy value, you really cannot get a quart out of a pint pot I am not disputing this, and whilst it may be ambiguous in my writing what I have stated is that the cost of manufacturing Hydrogen is dropping, due to the alternate generating process. The Australian deployment makes the cost of purchasing energy for a home comparable with other energy sources, what's not to like?

Your stated perspective is that you cannot see Hydrogen as being a viable energy source for light vehicles, but this is not correct as some of these vehicles exist.

You can buy a Honda Clarity on lease today for $379 (£278) a month it exists, it does not matter if you think you will be better off with a Battery car Hydrogen cars do exist and can be purchased.

Hyundai Nexo at just $58,735 (£43,157) again it exists although you can currently only buy one in the states in California.

Again in the US

"Toyota engineer Birdsall said 2021 Mirai owners will receive $15,000 in free hydrogen, or enough money to cover the first 67,000 miles. It costs about $90 to fill up the car's 5.6 kilogram tank. These giveaways could help change consumers' minds -- at least in California -- to try an FCEV. Hydrogen's limitations, however, may be too much for any automaker to overcome in the long term.

If manufactures are giving away 'free' fuel there is little difference to that and the governments incentive to discount a Alternate fuelled vehicle.

"We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket," Birdsall noted. "Both BEVs and hydrogen fuel cells are the future."

I think you will see the cost of Hydrogen production dropping dramatically, you mention distribution but that's what we do now, what bout when production is local? and it could be that Hydrogen is market specific.

Regarding Le Mans and LMP's often a category of racer will be fielded as in the case of Hydrogen power, this is done by manufactures so that it can both showcase the technology and learn about it in extreme conditions this learning is then transferred to main stream vehicles, you cant get much lighter or faster than an LMP!

It could be that Hydrogen never hits the main stream, too many obsticals or lack of investment.

But they are viable and I can see a place for them in the MoHo Market which is where this started but also respect your view you do not think it will.

Here is a bloomberg comment about Plug:

Plug

Power Inc. ( PLUG )

is another infrastructure play in the clean-car market. Morgan Stanley
recently upgraded Plug from Equal Weight to Overweight with a $14 price target
after the leading fuel cell maker impressed during its investor day
presentation. Morgan Stanley's Stephen Byrd believes green hydrogen will
become economically viable quicker than investors appreciate saying

Plug Power's deal with Apex Clean Energy

to develop a green hydrogen network using wind power offers a chance to tap
into "very low cost" renewable power and helps accelerate the shift to clean
energy. Plug has a goal for over 50% of its hydrogen supplies to be generated
from renewable resources by 2024.

The company has also just announced a partnership with Universal Hydrogen to
build a commercially-viable hydrogen fuel cell-based propulsion system
designed to power commercial regional aircraft. The initiative will help bring
Plug's proven hydrogen ProGen fuel cell technology to new markets.

 

[Gromett]

Good to debate Gromett

Fist of all you will have noted that regarding your figures I have not challenged them, any fuel has an energy value, you really cannot get a quart out of a pint pot I am not disputing this, and whilst it may be ambiguous in my writing what I have stated is that the cost of manufacturing Hydrogen is dropping, due to the alternate generating process. The Australian deployment makes the cost of purchasing energy for a home comparable with other energy sources, what's not to like?

Your stated perspective is that you cannot see Hydrogen as being a viable energy source for light vehicles, but this is not correct as some of these vehicles exist.

You can buy a Honda Clarity on lease today for $379 (£278) a month it exists, it does not matter if you think you will be better off with a Battery car Hydrogen cars do exist and can be purchased.

Hyundai Nexo at just $58,735 (£43,157) again it exists although you can currently only buy one in the states in California.

Again in the US

"Toyota engineer Birdsall said 2021 Mirai owners will receive $15,000 in free hydrogen, or enough money to cover the first 67,000 miles. It costs about $90 to fill up the car's 5.6 kilogram tank. These giveaways could help change consumers' minds -- at least in California -- to try an FCEV. Hydrogen's limitations, however, may be too much for any automaker to overcome in the long term.

If manufactures are giving away 'free' fuel there is little difference to that and the governments incentive to discount a Alternate fuelled vehicle.

"We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket," Birdsall noted. "Both BEVs and hydrogen fuel cells are the future."

I think you will see the cost of Hydrogen production dropping dramatically, you mention distribution but that's what we do now, what bout when production is local? and it could be that Hydrogen is market specific.

Regarding Le Mans and LMP's often a category of racer will be fielded as in the case of Hydrogen power, this is done by manufactures so that it can both showcase the technology and learn about it in extreme conditions this learning is then transferred to main stream vehicles, you cant get much lighter or faster than an LMP!

It could be that Hydrogen never hits the main stream, too many obsticals or lack of investment.

But they are viable and I can see a place for them in the MoHo Market which is where this started but also respect your view you do not think it will.

You have totally avoided the point again. I have told you why hydrogen won't work. I gave a practical example alongside the maths to demonstrate the problem. You say the cost of manufacturing hydrogen is dropping, I never disputed this. I said in raw energy terms it is an inefficient fuel source and can't come close to batteries in terms of cost.

You then jump onto the cost of cars. I have never said that hydrogen cars don't exist. My point is that no one will buy them until there is infrastructure to support them. No one will invest in the vast nationwide network of filling stations until there are enough cars to make them profitable. How do you break this catch 22 situation.

But let's say the government entirely funds a multi billion hydrogen filling station network off the taxpayers back and people do start buying hydrogen cars.... Where is the electric going to come from. We will need 2-3 times more electric than if we just shift to BEV's.

Remember this basic fact. it takes an absolute minimum of 39.4KWh to electrolyse 1KG of hydrogen (excluding compressing, chilling and transport). So your Mirai with it's free hydrogen would require 5KG of hydrogen @39.4KW = 197KWh of electric. REMEMBER this excluded compressions, chilling and transport. For this you get 312 miles of range.

The Mirai is a £65,000 car. Let's look at the Tesla Model 3 long range. £49,000 with a 360 mile range. It has a 75KWh battery and with transmission losses would require around 80KWh to full charge.

So you are telling me that a car that requires 197KWh+++ of electric to go 312 miles and costs £65,000 is better than a car that requires 80KWh to go 360 miles and costs £49,000?

Not to mention the Tesla can be charged anywhere and the Mirai can only be refilled in an extremely limited number of places...

So back to my questions.
1) Who is going to invest in a filling station network for hydrogen cars if there are practically no hydrogen cars on the road and no sign of them making progress.
2) Which member of the public is going to buy a hydrogen car that costs more and can't be filled anywhere except a few locations?
3) Where is all the extra electric going to come from for the hydrogen cars. A lot of people doubt we can even supply BEVs never mind going 2-3 times more electric for FCEV.

Literally the ONLY advantage hydrogen has over battery is it's refill time. As stated in the next 2-4 years recharge times will fall for BEVs and by the time the ban comes in Hydrogen will have zero advantages. Hydrogen will have the disadvantages of higher complexity, higher maintenance costs, higher cost of electric production, and probably still no filling stations.

 

[SpeedyDux]

After reading this fascinating debate about hydrogen as a vehicle fuel it does strike me that the West should rethink the alleged climate change consensus. Maybe CO2 isn't so bad after all. The focus would be better directed at reducing the NOx and particulate emissions. ICE still has a future alongside EVs. Or should do.

Meanwhile China and India are going to carry on expanding their CO2 emissions regardless. Kyoto and Paris accords allow this. The CO2 savings from the UK's 2050 net zero CO2 target will be cancelled out by a mere 4 months increased emissions from China. So - why are we going to incur about £2 Trillion extra costs in the UK alone, and hamstring our economy, just to achieve such a piffling alleged environmental benefit? Doesn't make much sense. All about virtue-signalling so our political leaders can big themselves up at Climate Conferences.

Of course aviation gets a free pass, almost. Because no VIP is going to use sailing boats and trains to travel to the next conference. Them and us.

 

[Gromett]

After reading this fascinating debate about hydrogen as a vehicle fuel it does strike me that the West should rethink the alleged climate change consensus. Maybe CO2 isn't so bad after all. The focus would be better directed at reducing the NOx and particulate emissions. ICE still has a future alongside EVs. Or should do.

I couldn't disagree more. It is CO2 that is causing the warming. That is the main aim of the change to sustainable energy. The rest although desirable are not of such significant global impact.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

After reading this fascinating debate about hydrogen as a vehicle fuel it does strike me that the West should rethink the alleged climate change consensus. Maybe CO2 isn't so bad after all. The focus would be better directed at reducing the NOx and particulate emissions. ICE still has a future alongside EVs. Or should do.

Meanwhile China and India are going to carry on expanding their CO2 emissions regardless. Kyoto and Paris accords allow this. The CO2 savings from the UK's 2050 net zero CO2 target will be cancelled out by a mere 4 months increased emissions from China. So - why are we going to incur about £2 Trillion extra costs in the UK alone, and hamstring our economy, just to achieve such a piffling alleged environmental benefit? Doesn't make much sense. All about virtue-signalling so our political leaders can big themselves up at Climate Conferences.

Of course aviation gets a free pass, almost. Because no VIP is going to use sailing boats and trains to travel to the next conference. Them and us.

I jumped in and answered your first sentence without really taking in the rest.

China and India are doing massive work on renewable energy. Yes their fossil fuel industry is still growing, but their renewable industry is growing faster. It is only a matter of time before they start reducing total CO2 emissions.

As for the extra costs in the UK. Think of it as an investment in the future. It will generate loads of new jobs, new technologies we can sell and services we can provide globally. We are currently one of the world leaders in offshore wind and that is going to be huge in the future.

Look at how much regeneration is being done in failed dock towns like Grimsby where wind has kick started the economy and we are only at the beginning of it. Offshore wind now requires no subsidies to be profitable. We could be one of the world leaders in battery tech going forward and the new small scale startups in the BEV market could go big. I am looking closely at Arrival. It is a massive disruptor and things will change dramatically and we are in a great position to capitalise on it.

 

[Gromett]

Renewable energy demand rises as China leads 2020 growth

China has contributed significantly to this jump in 2020 and the IEA expects the country's renewable energy capacity to grow by 30 percent this year.

newseu.cgtn.com

China

Bahar says China has contributed significantly to this jump in 2020 and the IEA expects the country's renewable energy capacity to grow by 30 percent this year – a big increase compared to 2019

India

India is expected to follow suit and it is forecast the country will double its capacity additions in just one year.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I couldn't disagree more. It is CO2 that is causing the warming. That is the main aim of the change to sustainable energy. The rest although desirable are not of such significant global impact.

A bit OT but still. I recommend GLOBAL WARMING A case study in groupthink by Christopher Booker.

I used to follow the herd on global warming due to higher anthropogenic CO2 but as I became better informed I also became more sceptical. Many climatologists are sceptical and say these extreme environmental green policies are premature. On balance there seems to be a lack of evidence to support it or certainly enough problems to raise serious doubts. 97% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably from natural causes and the evidence that it is really warming the planet is lacking. The climate was never stable in the past and will change again anyway.

 

[Gromett]

A bit OT but still. I recommend GLOBAL WARMING A case study in groupthink by Christopher Booker.

I used to follow the herd on global warming due to higher anthropogenic CO2 but as I became better informed I also became more sceptical. Many climatologists are sceptical and say these extreme environmental green policies are premature. On balance there seems to be a lack of evidence to support it or certainly enough problems to raise serious doubts. 97% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably from natural causes and the evidence that it is really warming the planet is lacking. The climate was never stable in the past and will change again anyway.

Here is my position. Science has proven beyond any doubt that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. The only debate is how fast and by how much.

The net effect of the changeover to renewable energy in the UK will be positive both economically and from an energy security point of view. I don't see the issue with the changeover.

I was a sceptic of global warming for quite a while, I was a sceptic of wind power, I was a sceptic of grid scale storage. I was pro hydrogen. I was wrong on ALL counts.

I have a tactic that I use on myself which is to take the opposing view and try to argue it. Find evidence and then try to shoot myself down. I don't have to do that quite so much these days as I have lots of people on here to debate with. But it is a valuable technique to understand both sides of the argument and to understand the details better.

I really do value the debates I have on here even with the stubborn ones

 

[SpeedyDux]

Here is my position. Science has proven beyond any doubt that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. The only debate is how fast and by how much.

The net effect of the changeover to renewable energy in the UK will be positive both economically and from an energy security point of view. I don't see the issue with the changeover.

I was a sceptic of global warming for quite a while, I was a sceptic of wind power, I was a sceptic of grid scale storage. I was pro hydrogen. I was wrong on ALL counts.

I have a tactic that I use on myself which is to take the opposing view and try to argue it. Find evidence and then try to shoot myself down. I don't have to do that quite so much these days as I have lots of people on here to debate with. But it is a valuable technique to understand both sides of the argument and to understand the details better.

I really do value the debates I have on here even with the stubborn ones

Still waiting for the rise in global temperature to match the modelling predictions, or how they explain falls in global temperature despite rising CO2. Which is why the alleged scientific consensus tried to move the goalposts and argue that rising CO2 causes more extreme weather events. Again, that is unsupported by the metereological evidence.

Hopefully a future government will cancel the 2030 ban on sales of ICE cars and vans and allow them to compete with EVs. Let the market operate. I thought you are pro markets. If EVs are the future they will prevail.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

SpeedyDux India...

Largest Renewable Energy Project In World Will Be 30 Gigawatt Solar–Wind Project In India - CleanTechnica

India is getting to work on what will be the largest renewable energy project in the world. Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation this week — physically — for the 30 gigawatt (GW) wind and solar power project being built in his home state of Gujarat, India.

cleantechnica.com

 

[Gromett]

Still waiting for the rise in global temperature to match the modelling predictions, or how they explain falls in global temperature despite rising CO2. Which is why the alleged scientific consensus tried to move the goalposts and argue that rising CO2 causes more extreme weather events. Again, that is unsupported by the metereological evidence.

Hopefully a future government will cancel the 2030 ban on sales of ICE cars and vans and allow them to compete with EVs. Let the market operate. I thought you are pro markets. If EVs are the future they will prevail.

Falls in global temperature? Do you have a link to support that statement?

On extreme weather events. You say this is unsupported by evidence. Are you saying that there is no increase in extreme weather events or that there is no evidence that these are caused by the rising temp and CO2 levels?

On free market capitalism you bet I am a proponent. But you missed a bit out. I am actually a proponent of a well regulated free market. When the free market fails it generally fails for a number of reasons. In this case the reason is the uncosted externality of CO2.
Companies are profiting off the back of cheap energy whilst not paying for this uncosted externality of CO2 emissions. There are two ways to solve this. Add a cost to the emitted CO2 or prevent it being emitted.
We are going down both routes. Banning CO2 emissions where it is practical and also charging for carbon emissions going forward.

Governments in free markets regularly ban things or put excessive taxes on bad things. This is perfectly ok in a free market providing it applies to everyone.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Falls in global temperature? Do you have a link to support that statement?

View attachment 449616

On extreme weather events. You say this is unsupported by evidence. Are you saying that there is no increase in extreme weather events or that there is no evidence that these are caused by the rising temp and CO2 levels?

On free market capitalism you bet I am a proponent. But you missed a bit out. I am actually a proponent of a well regulated free market. When the free market fails it generally fails for a number of reasons. In this case the reason is the uncosted externality of CO2.
Companies are profiting off the back of cheap energy whilst not paying for this uncosted externality of CO2 emissions. There are two ways to solve this. Add a cost to the emitted CO2 or prevent it being emitted.
We are going down both routes. Banning CO2 emissions where it is practical and also charging for carbon emissions going forward.

Governments in free markets regularly ban things or put excessive taxes on bad things. This is perfectly ok in a free market providing it applies to everyone.

Global average temperatures rose during the Medieval Warm Period well before the industrial revolution and rise in CO2. Then they fell again. This fact undermines the theory that global warming is caused by rising CO2. At best there might be some correlation. Climatology is a long term science and whjat we get are claims based on very short periods of observations. I could criticise the recent data as well but I'm sure you won't accept that. The graph you posted doesn't really correlate much with the graph for increased CO2.

As for the alleged recent increase in extreme weather events this is difficult to take seriously when you look at what has happened in the past. It is not significant.

If the average temperature does go up 2 degrees then the UK will get a couple more sunny days each summer. Big deal. I was looking forward to a Mediterranean climate but that isn't predicted by the most extreme climate change activists. Boo hiss wotta swiz.

 

[gus-lopez]

China and India are doing massive work on renewable energy. Yes their fossil fuel industry is still growing, but their renewable industry is growing faster. It is only a matter of time before they start reducing total CO2 emissions.

But it should have been done 28 years ago after the first conference.No allow them to continue using what everyone else was having to remove & being financially penalised for?

 

[Gromett]

Global average temperatures rose during the Medieval Warm Period well before the industrial revolution and rise in CO2. Then they fell again. This fact undermines the theory that global warming is caused by rising CO2. At best there might be some correlation. Climatology is a long term science and whjat we get are claims based on very short periods of observations. I could criticise the recent data as well but I'm sure you won't accept that. The graph you posted doesn't really correlate much with the graph for increased CO2.

As for the alleged recent increase in extreme weather events this is difficult to take seriously when you look at what has happened in the past. It is not significant.

If the average temperature does go up 2 degrees then the UK will get a couple more sunny days each summer. Big deal. I was looking forward to a Mediterranean climate but that isn't predicted by the most extreme climate change activists. Boo hiss wotta swiz.

WOW!!!

Global average temperatures did not rise during the Medieval warm period as far as I know. The Atlantic area suffered a warming but the pacific areas suffered a cool down. The average would roughly the same as the early 20th century.

There is a correlation between CO2 and global average temps. But it is not perfect and this is explained in a bunch of ways. The ocean has sucked up a lot of that heat and resulted in the acidification of the ocean. But there has definately been a rise in temps. Secondly we are likely at some point to see a cascade effect. The white ice caps reflect sunlight and therefore heat, the ocean is darker and absorbs them. The ice caps shrinking will result in more black and less white. Then there is the permafrost which is a HUGE carbon sink. Once that starts melting and we are seeing early evidence then more CO2 will be released. These are just two examples of the cascade effect... When will it happen, how bad will it be, what will the effects be? I have no idea I am not a climateologist but I do not think it is sensible to find out.

You say recent extreme weather events are not significant? ok... Sounds like sticking you head in the sand to me.

If the temp goes up 2 degrees, it is likely the UK will get colder winters and hotter more humid summers. It is also likely to be a lot cloudier and rainier. Not to mention that countries that currently supply us food will not be able to. Sea level rises will mean lots more immigration/asylum demands and our coast line won't be immune to sea level rises. I am not saying this will happen tomorrow or even in the next 50 years. But it will all happens if we don't get to grips with it. I am not a catastrophist. We will find ways to work with what we have and I am confident this country would do well no matter what happens. I just don't think it is necessary to take the risk. Banning new ICE cars in 2030 and pushing for 30GWh of wind power over the next decades doesn't seem extreme as both will create jobs and opportunities in the economy.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}