Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mr Bean actor blamed for slow electric car sales; general energy
1 view
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver
Feb 10, 2024, 2:28:43 AM2/10/24
to
Copied and followup-to set to eternal-september.talk, so Ray doesn't
have to plough through this in 'support.
In message <65c6c72d$1...@news.ausics.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:45:33,
noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes
>theres a nice video interview on youtube I saw last year whewn he said
>this, and I agree with him, hydrogen is way to go forward, its much
>cleaner all round, cleaner to produce (EV fanbois seem to forget EV
Hydrogen production also takes energy, and pure IC vehicles - whether
petrol/diesel or hydrogen - dump energy as heat only when braking,
whereas anything with at least some electric reclaims some of the
braking energy. Hydrogen may have its place, though, where journeys are
longer and steady, such as parts of the USA, and - currently at least -
for heavy freight vehicles.
>chargring comes from someowhere, usually coal and gas fired systems that
That varies by nation - UK currently is only between 0 and 2% coal, and
will be 0 before long.
>in a changing climate also have to power the hungry air conditioners that
>are contantly being installed in large numbers.
Or, in UK and similar climates, heat pumps.
Although overall capacity is definitely a problem, I _think_ UK will
keep up with demand - the bigger problem is grid capacity: we're
generating the power, but not in the places where the people are, so
that has to be remedied.
>
>Those li-ion batteries only have a max life number of recharges, we've
>already seen the horror media reports that failed batteries mean
>relacing the entire shelf, thats 7-10K a module by media reports from
>those who have been quoted that.
Everything has a limited life - IC engines too.
>
>Then theres e-waste - Li-ION's are typially NMC or NCA technologies,
>both very bad for environment and expensive. LFE aka LiFePo4 is much
>better, cheaper, and safer (thermal runaway is near impossible due to its
>incredibly slow heat rise properties) and although LFP's dont quite yet
>hold the same power densities, I'd still only buy them, for anything...
>I'd prefer a slow burning campfire then a nuclear bomb sitting in my
>garage (BTW same goes for solar power walls), but as I said above, I'd
>rather see hydrogen looked at more, they do exist, you do the research.
There have been suggestions that time-served EV batteries can go to
static storage - they don't become complete junk, just reduced capacity;
I genuinely don't know how viable this is. As for campfire versus bomb,
how about your hydrogen tank (-:??
>
>I get tesla has a huge marketing BS dept hard to work ,I mean, how dare
>anyone compete.
>
I think for small high-population areas, EVs have their place, for the
regenerative braking reason alone. This would apply to a _lot_ of the UK
once there are more charging points (at present, I'd be happier with a
hybrid, but in the longer term those are added complexity mechanically,
and also you're carrying around two engines, or at least one and a half,
compared to pure EV or pure IC).
>
Yes, the EV industry does over-sell itself, by varying degrees; however,
the anti-EV brigade also over-"sell" their side, jumping on _any_ bad EV
report, and being quiet about the disadvantages of pure IC.
(More below ...)
>
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 12:54:28 -0500, Wilson wrote:
[]
>> "Unfortunately, fact checks never reach the same breadth of audience as
>> the original false claim, emphasising the need to ensure high editorial
>> standards around the net zero transition."
That's always true - on both sides in this debate, and on many other
subjects too.
>>
>> The 69-year-old actor's piece was headlined: "I love electric vehicles -
>> and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped."
All those I've heard from who've driven them say electric are fun to
drive - more torque (especially from a standstill), and much quieter.
>>
>> Atkinson wrote that EVs were "a bit soulless" and criticised the use of
>> their lithium-ion batteries.
The lack of a roar sound may seem "soulless", since we've been used to
it for over a century.
>>
>> He suggested solutions like drivers keeping the same car for longer
>> periods of time and increased use of synthetic fuel would negate the
>> need for EVs, saying: "Increasingly, I'm feeling that our honeymoon with
>> electric cars is coming to an end, and that's no bad thing."
Certainly, the manufacturing energy cost of vehicles - including of even
pure IC ones - ought to be taken into account more; changing every three
years is excessive for many. However, the vehicle manufacturing industry
[IC, EV, hybrid, hydrogen, nuclear (-: ...] will always - quietly -
lobby to keep us on that cycle.
>>
>> The actor, who described himself as a "car person" having got a degree
>> in electrical and electronic engineering, said he advised friends to
>> "hold fire for now" on EVs unless they have an old diesel vehicle.
(That's very UK-specific. Diesel vehicles _are_ on the whole more
efficient in terms of miles-per-gallon, and some decades ago there was
quite a push towards them, but this is now countered by them being seen
as outputting more particulate pollution. _Modern_ diesels aren't bad in
that respect, but _older_ ones are now penalised more in UK, both in
road tax and in congestion charges. And EVs need more charging points -
which are coming, but he may be right about holding fire for now,
especially for those who cannot low-speed charge overnight at home -
flat [apartment] dwellers, for example.)
>>
>> The Guardian published a response the following week from Simon Evans,
>> deputy editor and senior policy editor of climate news site Carbon
>> Brief, which looked to debunk Atkinson's claims.
>>
>> Mr Evans wrote: "Atkinson's biggest mistake is his failure to recognise
>> that electric vehicles already offer significant global environmental
>> benefits, compared with combustion-engine cars."
That of course is overstating _their_ case. It is fairly true that - for
the _average_ UK driver - a pure electric vehicle _is_ better for the
planet in the long run, _and_ cheaper to run - but the payback period is
about seven years on cost *in the UK*, and eleven for the planet; an
investigative radio programme yielded those figures a few years ago, so
increases in fuel costs and improvements in EVs since may have shortened
the periods, but they're still quite long. And "range anxiety" is still
a worry for some. It based on the average UK mileage - which I _think_
was 7000 miles a year; the payback period was shorter for those who do
more, longer for those who do less. (Pure running costs - fuel against
electricity - worked out - again, UK specific - as about 10p a mile less
for electric. This didn't take into account differing tax breaks, which
can change on any government whim, or maintenance cost differences,
which will improve gradually for electric as more garages get
capability.)
Maintenance is an interesting one; the main uncertainly _is_ the
batteries for long-term. Short-term, electric vehicles have less to go
wrong on the whole (they're basically simpler), but - at present at
least - are more expensive to fix when they do.
>>
>> Atkinson's views were used to make a wider point about "misleading"
>> reports stunting EV sales.
>>
>> Other challenges highlighted during the committee meeting included
>> insufficient numbers of charging points, higher prices on EVs and "a
>> lack of clear and consistent messaging from the government".
Yes, the government (and opposition, who will probably be the government
after this year) have vacillated. Not just on vehicles - other aspects
of "net zero" too.
[]
>> Yes, it's all Mr. Bean's fault. Thank the gods for the fact checkers,
>> otherwise we might be mislead by the obviously bogus ideas that EVs cost
>> too much to buy and to replace their batteries when they inevitably go
>> bad, and their lack of range when temperatures drop below freezing.
>
(That last - which is itself overstated, it's when _far_ below freezing
that the effect, if it exists, becomes significant - is of course going
to be less of a problem going forward as climate changes.)
The UK uses, very roughly, the same amount of energy for three things:
traditional electricity use, heating, and transport. Heating is still
mostly by gas, and _realistically_ this is not going to change rapidly.
This will be very different for other countries (and in specific _parts_
of the UK): for example, parts of the USA will use a lot more for
transport (in energy terms, not cost terms, as fuel is cheaper), and in
some a lot less for heating but a lot more for air conditioning (which
_most_ UK homes do not even _have_).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
_____
___ |[]|_n_n_I_c
|___||__|###|____)
O-O--O-O+++--O-O
have to plough through this in 'support.
In message <65c6c72d$1...@news.ausics.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:45:33,
noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes
>theres a nice video interview on youtube I saw last year whewn he said
>this, and I agree with him, hydrogen is way to go forward, its much
>cleaner all round, cleaner to produce (EV fanbois seem to forget EV
Hydrogen production also takes energy, and pure IC vehicles - whether
petrol/diesel or hydrogen - dump energy as heat only when braking,
whereas anything with at least some electric reclaims some of the
braking energy. Hydrogen may have its place, though, where journeys are
longer and steady, such as parts of the USA, and - currently at least -
for heavy freight vehicles.
>chargring comes from someowhere, usually coal and gas fired systems that
That varies by nation - UK currently is only between 0 and 2% coal, and
will be 0 before long.
>in a changing climate also have to power the hungry air conditioners that
>are contantly being installed in large numbers.
Or, in UK and similar climates, heat pumps.
Although overall capacity is definitely a problem, I _think_ UK will
keep up with demand - the bigger problem is grid capacity: we're
generating the power, but not in the places where the people are, so
that has to be remedied.
>
>Those li-ion batteries only have a max life number of recharges, we've
>already seen the horror media reports that failed batteries mean
>relacing the entire shelf, thats 7-10K a module by media reports from
>those who have been quoted that.
Everything has a limited life - IC engines too.
>
>Then theres e-waste - Li-ION's are typially NMC or NCA technologies,
>both very bad for environment and expensive. LFE aka LiFePo4 is much
>better, cheaper, and safer (thermal runaway is near impossible due to its
>incredibly slow heat rise properties) and although LFP's dont quite yet
>hold the same power densities, I'd still only buy them, for anything...
>I'd prefer a slow burning campfire then a nuclear bomb sitting in my
>garage (BTW same goes for solar power walls), but as I said above, I'd
>rather see hydrogen looked at more, they do exist, you do the research.
There have been suggestions that time-served EV batteries can go to
static storage - they don't become complete junk, just reduced capacity;
I genuinely don't know how viable this is. As for campfire versus bomb,
how about your hydrogen tank (-:??
>
>I get tesla has a huge marketing BS dept hard to work ,I mean, how dare
>anyone compete.
>
I think for small high-population areas, EVs have their place, for the
regenerative braking reason alone. This would apply to a _lot_ of the UK
once there are more charging points (at present, I'd be happier with a
hybrid, but in the longer term those are added complexity mechanically,
and also you're carrying around two engines, or at least one and a half,
compared to pure EV or pure IC).
>
Yes, the EV industry does over-sell itself, by varying degrees; however,
the anti-EV brigade also over-"sell" their side, jumping on _any_ bad EV
report, and being quiet about the disadvantages of pure IC.
(More below ...)
>
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 12:54:28 -0500, Wilson wrote:
[]
>> "Unfortunately, fact checks never reach the same breadth of audience as
>> the original false claim, emphasising the need to ensure high editorial
>> standards around the net zero transition."
That's always true - on both sides in this debate, and on many other
subjects too.
>>
>> The 69-year-old actor's piece was headlined: "I love electric vehicles -
>> and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped."
All those I've heard from who've driven them say electric are fun to
drive - more torque (especially from a standstill), and much quieter.
>>
>> Atkinson wrote that EVs were "a bit soulless" and criticised the use of
>> their lithium-ion batteries.
The lack of a roar sound may seem "soulless", since we've been used to
it for over a century.
>>
>> He suggested solutions like drivers keeping the same car for longer
>> periods of time and increased use of synthetic fuel would negate the
>> need for EVs, saying: "Increasingly, I'm feeling that our honeymoon with
>> electric cars is coming to an end, and that's no bad thing."
Certainly, the manufacturing energy cost of vehicles - including of even
pure IC ones - ought to be taken into account more; changing every three
years is excessive for many. However, the vehicle manufacturing industry
[IC, EV, hybrid, hydrogen, nuclear (-: ...] will always - quietly -
lobby to keep us on that cycle.
>>
>> The actor, who described himself as a "car person" having got a degree
>> in electrical and electronic engineering, said he advised friends to
>> "hold fire for now" on EVs unless they have an old diesel vehicle.
(That's very UK-specific. Diesel vehicles _are_ on the whole more
efficient in terms of miles-per-gallon, and some decades ago there was
quite a push towards them, but this is now countered by them being seen
as outputting more particulate pollution. _Modern_ diesels aren't bad in
that respect, but _older_ ones are now penalised more in UK, both in
road tax and in congestion charges. And EVs need more charging points -
which are coming, but he may be right about holding fire for now,
especially for those who cannot low-speed charge overnight at home -
flat [apartment] dwellers, for example.)
>>
>> The Guardian published a response the following week from Simon Evans,
>> deputy editor and senior policy editor of climate news site Carbon
>> Brief, which looked to debunk Atkinson's claims.
>>
>> Mr Evans wrote: "Atkinson's biggest mistake is his failure to recognise
>> that electric vehicles already offer significant global environmental
>> benefits, compared with combustion-engine cars."
That of course is overstating _their_ case. It is fairly true that - for
the _average_ UK driver - a pure electric vehicle _is_ better for the
planet in the long run, _and_ cheaper to run - but the payback period is
about seven years on cost *in the UK*, and eleven for the planet; an
investigative radio programme yielded those figures a few years ago, so
increases in fuel costs and improvements in EVs since may have shortened
the periods, but they're still quite long. And "range anxiety" is still
a worry for some. It based on the average UK mileage - which I _think_
was 7000 miles a year; the payback period was shorter for those who do
more, longer for those who do less. (Pure running costs - fuel against
electricity - worked out - again, UK specific - as about 10p a mile less
for electric. This didn't take into account differing tax breaks, which
can change on any government whim, or maintenance cost differences,
which will improve gradually for electric as more garages get
capability.)
Maintenance is an interesting one; the main uncertainly _is_ the
batteries for long-term. Short-term, electric vehicles have less to go
wrong on the whole (they're basically simpler), but - at present at
least - are more expensive to fix when they do.
>>
>> Atkinson's views were used to make a wider point about "misleading"
>> reports stunting EV sales.
>>
>> Other challenges highlighted during the committee meeting included
>> insufficient numbers of charging points, higher prices on EVs and "a
>> lack of clear and consistent messaging from the government".
Yes, the government (and opposition, who will probably be the government
after this year) have vacillated. Not just on vehicles - other aspects
of "net zero" too.
[]
>> Yes, it's all Mr. Bean's fault. Thank the gods for the fact checkers,
>> otherwise we might be mislead by the obviously bogus ideas that EVs cost
>> too much to buy and to replace their batteries when they inevitably go
>> bad, and their lack of range when temperatures drop below freezing.
>
(That last - which is itself overstated, it's when _far_ below freezing
that the effect, if it exists, becomes significant - is of course going
to be less of a problem going forward as climate changes.)
The UK uses, very roughly, the same amount of energy for three things:
traditional electricity use, heating, and transport. Heating is still
mostly by gas, and _realistically_ this is not going to change rapidly.
This will be very different for other countries (and in specific _parts_
of the UK): for example, parts of the USA will use a lot more for
transport (in energy terms, not cost terms, as fuel is cheaper), and in
some a lot less for heating but a lot more for air conditioning (which
_most_ UK homes do not even _have_).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
_____
___ |[]|_n_n_I_c
|___||__|###|____)
O-O--O-O+++--O-O
Dan Purgert
Feb 11, 2024, 8:16:01 AM2/11/24
to
On 2024-02-10, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Copied and followup-to set to eternal-september.talk, so Ray doesn't
> have to plough through this in 'support.
>
> In message <65c6c72d$1...@news.ausics.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:45:33,
> noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes
>>theres a nice video interview on youtube I saw last year whewn he said
>>this, and I agree with him, hydrogen is way to go forward, its much
>>cleaner all round, cleaner to produce (EV fanbois seem to forget EV
>
> Hydrogen production also takes energy, and pure IC vehicles - whether
> petrol/diesel or hydrogen - dump energy as heat only when braking,
> whereas anything with at least some electric reclaims some of the
> braking energy. Hydrogen may have its place, though, where journeys are
> longer and steady, such as parts of the USA, and - currently at least -
> for heavy freight vehicles.
Aren't Hydrogen setups electric systems? I didn't think the Hydrogen
> Copied and followup-to set to eternal-september.talk, so Ray doesn't
> have to plough through this in 'support.
>
> In message <65c6c72d$1...@news.ausics.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:45:33,
> noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes
>>theres a nice video interview on youtube I saw last year whewn he said
>>this, and I agree with him, hydrogen is way to go forward, its much
>>cleaner all round, cleaner to produce (EV fanbois seem to forget EV
>
> Hydrogen production also takes energy, and pure IC vehicles - whether
> petrol/diesel or hydrogen - dump energy as heat only when braking,
> whereas anything with at least some electric reclaims some of the
> braking energy. Hydrogen may have its place, though, where journeys are
> longer and steady, such as parts of the USA, and - currently at least -
> for heavy freight vehicles.
was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
J. P. Gilliver
Feb 11, 2024, 10:20:04 AM2/11/24
to
In message <slrnushi4...@djph.net> at Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:15:58,
Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
[]
- just using it as an alternative (albeit cleaner _at the point of
consumption_) fuel; yes, there are some "fuel cell" types, but I don't
think they're in the majority.
- Jane Rackham, RT 2016/5/28-6/3
Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
[]
>Aren't Hydrogen setups electric systems? I didn't think the Hydrogen
>was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
>
>So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>
>But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
>
I think the majority of hydrogen vehicles are indeed internal combustion
>was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
>
>So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>
>But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
>
- just using it as an alternative (albeit cleaner _at the point of
consumption_) fuel; yes, there are some "fuel cell" types, but I don't
think they're in the majority.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The average age of a single mum in this country is 37
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
- Jane Rackham, RT 2016/5/28-6/3
Bobbie Sellers
Feb 11, 2024, 11:53:13 AM2/11/24
to
On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2024-02-10, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Copied and followup-to set to eternal-september.talk, so Ray doesn't
>> have to plough through this in 'support.
>>
>> In message <65c6c72d$1...@news.ausics.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:45:33,
>> noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes
>>> theres a nice video interview on youtube I saw last year whewn he said
>>> this, and I agree with him, hydrogen is way to go forward, its much
>>> cleaner all round, cleaner to produce (EV fanbois seem to forget EV
>>
>> Hydrogen production also takes energy, and pure IC vehicles - whether
>> petrol/diesel or hydrogen - dump energy as heat only when braking,
>> whereas anything with at least some electric reclaims some of the
>> braking energy. Hydrogen may have its place, though, where journeys are
>> longer and steady, such as parts of the USA, and - currently at least -
>> for heavy freight vehicles.
>
> Aren't Hydrogen setups electric systems? I didn't think the Hydrogen
> was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
Hydrogen has at least one IC engine, very advanced design and
> On 2024-02-10, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Copied and followup-to set to eternal-september.talk, so Ray doesn't
>> have to plough through this in 'support.
>>
>> In message <65c6c72d$1...@news.ausics.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:45:33,
>> noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes
>>> theres a nice video interview on youtube I saw last year whewn he said
>>> this, and I agree with him, hydrogen is way to go forward, its much
>>> cleaner all round, cleaner to produce (EV fanbois seem to forget EV
>>
>> Hydrogen production also takes energy, and pure IC vehicles - whether
>> petrol/diesel or hydrogen - dump energy as heat only when braking,
>> whereas anything with at least some electric reclaims some of the
>> braking energy. Hydrogen may have its place, though, where journeys are
>> longer and steady, such as parts of the USA, and - currently at least -
>> for heavy freight vehicles.
>
> Aren't Hydrogen setups electric systems? I didn't think the Hydrogen
> was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
would be very expensive. Fuel cells using Hydrogen to generate electric
are not batteries. I have never used it but we have one Hydrogen
equipped service station in San Francisco.
>
> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
Noo!! Fuel cell!
> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>
> But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
>
No you don't, I noticed above.
> But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
>
But no one can keep up with everything. I just started watching
stuff earlier.
bliss
Sn!pe
Feb 11, 2024, 1:08:08 PM2/11/24
to
Indeed, fuel cells, fuelled by Hydrogen and ~tada!~ Oxygen.
--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
My pet rock Gordon just is.
Dan Purgert
Feb 12, 2024, 6:47:25 AM2/12/24
to
On 2024-02-11, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <slrnushi4...@djph.net> at Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:15:58,
> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
> []
>>Aren't Hydrogen setups electric systems? I didn't think the Hydrogen
>>was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
>>
>>So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>>would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>>near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>>
>>But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
>>
> I think the majority of hydrogen vehicles are indeed internal combustion
> - just using it as an alternative (albeit cleaner _at the point of
> consumption_) fuel; yes, there are some "fuel cell" types, but I don't
> think they're in the majority.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah it'd make for a decent(ish) intermediate; provided
> In message <slrnushi4...@djph.net> at Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:15:58,
> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
> []
>>Aren't Hydrogen setups electric systems? I didn't think the Hydrogen
>>was being burned in an ICE like propane / petrol / diesel.
>>
>>So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>>would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>>near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>>
>>But, I don't really keep tabs on all the improvements, etc.
>>
> I think the majority of hydrogen vehicles are indeed internal combustion
> - just using it as an alternative (albeit cleaner _at the point of
> consumption_) fuel; yes, there are some "fuel cell" types, but I don't
> think they're in the majority.
that you get roughly the same energy output per unit-volume . I mean,
if I need 500L of H2 to get as far as my (roughly) 50L petrol tank,
that's going to be pretty bad (unless, ofc,it's significantly cheaper
than petrol)
Dan Purgert
Feb 12, 2024, 7:11:19 AM2/12/24
to
On 2024-02-11, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> [...]
> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>
> Noo!! Fuel cell!
Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
>> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>
> Noo!! Fuel cell!
Battery (n) (sense 4)
(b) a group of two or more cells (see cell, sense 5) connected
together to furnish electric current.
ALSO: a single cell that furnishes electric current.
Cell (n) (sense 5):
(a1) A receptacle containing electrodes and an electrolyte either
for generating electricity or for use in electrolysis
(a2) fuel cell
(b) A single unit in a device for converting radiant energy into
electrical energy [...]
Huh, would you look at that ... it's "just another battery tech(tm)".
(Also, cross-checked with other sources online, incl. dictionary.com and
wikionary ... they agree in principle; albeit move definitions around,
etc.)
J. P. Gilliver
Feb 12, 2024, 8:23:39 AM2/12/24
to
In message <slrnusk2n...@djph.net> at Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:11:16,
Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
Leaving aside dictionary definitions: things may have been different in
the past and may be in the future again, but at the moment, those who
are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as opposed to petrol/diesel or
(rechargeable) electric, are mostly talking about internal combustion
engines that use hydrogen as a fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
>On 2024-02-11, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>>> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>>> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>>
>> Noo!! Fuel cell!
>
>Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
[]
>> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>>> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>>> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>>
>> Noo!! Fuel cell!
>
>Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
Leaving aside dictionary definitions: things may have been different in
the past and may be in the future again, but at the moment, those who
are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as opposed to petrol/diesel or
(rechargeable) electric, are mostly talking about internal combustion
engines that use hydrogen as a fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Dan Purgert
Feb 12, 2024, 9:25:12 AM2/12/24
to
On 2024-02-12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <slrnusk2n...@djph.net> at Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:11:16,
> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
>>On 2024-02-11, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>>>> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>>>> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>>>
>>> Noo!! Fuel cell!
>>
>>Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
> []
> Leaving aside dictionary definitions: things may have been different in
> the past and may be in the future again, but at the moment, those who
> are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as opposed to petrol/diesel or
> (rechargeable) electric, are mostly talking about internal combustion
> engines that use hydrogen as a fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
Which, I think I acknowledged as (potentially) the better intermediate
> In message <slrnusk2n...@djph.net> at Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:11:16,
> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
>>On 2024-02-11, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)"; and viability
>>>> would hinge on whether or not it's worse overall than current (or
>>>> near-term improvements to) existing battery tech.
>>>
>>> Noo!! Fuel cell!
>>
>>Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
> []
> Leaving aside dictionary definitions: things may have been different in
> the past and may be in the future again, but at the moment, those who
> are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as opposed to petrol/diesel or
> (rechargeable) electric, are mostly talking about internal combustion
> engines that use hydrogen as a fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
approach.
Although, I seem to recall that containment of Hydrogen is relatively
difficult (as in "it always finds a way to leak").
Daniel65
Feb 13, 2024, 3:16:32 AM2/13/24
to
Dan Purgert wrote on 13/2/24 1:25 am:
a system to pipe Hydrogen all over the place. Haven't read from him in a
while.
One of his other threads was "The creation of momentum with
electromagnetic force" .... so I'm thinking he is a bit "out there"!! ;-P
--
Daniel
> On 2024-02-12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <slrnusk2n...@djph.net> at Mon, 12 Feb 2024
>> 12:11:16, Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
>>> On 2024-02-11, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>>> [...] So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)";
>>>>> and viability would hinge on whether or not it's worse
>>>>> overall than current (or near-term improvements to) existing
>>>>> battery tech.
>>>>
>>>> Noo!! Fuel cell!
>>>
>>> Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
>> [] Leaving aside dictionary definitions: things may have been
>> different in the past and may be in the future again, but at the
>> moment, those who are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as
>> opposed to petrol/diesel or (rechargeable) electric, are mostly
>> talking about internal combustion engines that use hydrogen as a
>> fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
>
> Which, I think I acknowledged as (potentially) the better
> intermediate approach.
>
> Although, I seem to recall that containment of Hydrogen is
> relatively difficult (as in "it always finds a way to leak").
>
In one of the other NG that I read, one of the subscribers was promoting
>> In message <slrnusk2n...@djph.net> at Mon, 12 Feb 2024
>> 12:11:16, Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes
>>> On 2024-02-11, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 05:15, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>>> [...] So, essentially it's "just another battery tech(tm)";
>>>>> and viability would hinge on whether or not it's worse
>>>>> overall than current (or near-term improvements to) existing
>>>>> battery tech.
>>>>
>>>> Noo!! Fuel cell!
>>>
>>> Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary :
>> [] Leaving aside dictionary definitions: things may have been
>> different in the past and may be in the future again, but at the
>> moment, those who are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as
>> opposed to petrol/diesel or (rechargeable) electric, are mostly
>> talking about internal combustion engines that use hydrogen as a
>> fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
>
> Which, I think I acknowledged as (potentially) the better
> intermediate approach.
>
> Although, I seem to recall that containment of Hydrogen is
> relatively difficult (as in "it always finds a way to leak").
>
a system to pipe Hydrogen all over the place. Haven't read from him in a
while.
One of his other threads was "The creation of momentum with
electromagnetic force" .... so I'm thinking he is a bit "out there"!! ;-P
--
Daniel
J. P. Gilliver
Feb 13, 2024, 3:54:30 AM2/13/24
to
In message <uqf8gt$20k9e$1...@dont-email.me> at Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:16:31,
Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> writes
gas - and, though it's a bit less volatile, for aviation fuel (most of
which is _not_ distributed by tankers, but by underground pipelines).
considered! Though that's only going to be viable on major routes, if at
all. But all systems where the motive power is not reliant on the
individual vehicle storing the energy need giving _some_ attention - be
it electromagnetic, overhead (or slot?) wires, cables (like San
Francisco tramcars), or systems to move vehicles - on trains or in
vacuum/air-pressure tubes. All are fanciful, and hideously expensive to
set up - but consider the weird concept of laying strips of iron/steel
all over the continents (with supporting structures where needed), and
yet this worked - even yielding great profits eventually for the
investors - in 18xx-19xx.
(News Quiz 2013-7-26)
Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> writes
>Dan Purgert wrote on 13/2/24 1:25 am:
>> On 2024-02-12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> On 2024-02-12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> moment, those who are promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles as
>>> opposed to petrol/diesel or (rechargeable) electric, are mostly
>>> talking about internal combustion engines that use hydrogen as a
>>> fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
>> Which, I think I acknowledged as (potentially) the better
>> intermediate approach.
>> Although, I seem to recall that containment of Hydrogen is
>> relatively difficult (as in "it always finds a way to leak").
>>
>In one of the other NG that I read, one of the subscribers was
>promoting
>a system to pipe Hydrogen all over the place. Haven't read from him in a
>while.
Maybe he's been blown up! But seriously, we already do that for heating
>>> opposed to petrol/diesel or (rechargeable) electric, are mostly
>>> talking about internal combustion engines that use hydrogen as a
>>> fuel. (Wherever it comes from.)
>> Which, I think I acknowledged as (potentially) the better
>> intermediate approach.
>> Although, I seem to recall that containment of Hydrogen is
>> relatively difficult (as in "it always finds a way to leak").
>>
>In one of the other NG that I read, one of the subscribers was
>promoting
>a system to pipe Hydrogen all over the place. Haven't read from him in a
>while.
gas - and, though it's a bit less volatile, for aviation fuel (most of
which is _not_ distributed by tankers, but by underground pipelines).
>
>One of his other threads was "The creation of momentum with
>electromagnetic force" .... so I'm thinking he is a bit "out there"!! ;-P
Ah, the rail-gun principle! Well, I guess everything should be
>One of his other threads was "The creation of momentum with
>electromagnetic force" .... so I'm thinking he is a bit "out there"!! ;-P
considered! Though that's only going to be viable on major routes, if at
all. But all systems where the motive power is not reliant on the
individual vehicle storing the energy need giving _some_ attention - be
it electromagnetic, overhead (or slot?) wires, cables (like San
Francisco tramcars), or systems to move vehicles - on trains or in
vacuum/air-pressure tubes. All are fanciful, and hideously expensive to
set up - but consider the weird concept of laying strips of iron/steel
all over the continents (with supporting structures where needed), and
yet this worked - even yielding great profits eventually for the
investors - in 18xx-19xx.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
what - recession? Up north? What we gonna have - more nowt?
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(News Quiz 2013-7-26)
Borax Man
Feb 17, 2024, 6:35:30 PM2/17/24
to
burn. The energy needed to make it burn is less than petrol, and
being a gas, it spreads easy. Hydrogens small molecular size means it
can pass through microscopic holes more easily than larger hydrocarbon
molecules. *IF* it could be engineered to be safe, it would be a very
clean, very renewable source of energy.
0 new messages