Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Nicholas Palmer]

My Mitsubishi Ecodan air source heat pump works between -18 to +35°C...

https://library.mitsubishielectric.co.uk/pdf/book/PUZ-HWM140VHA_-BS#page-2

Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it


On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 19:41, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>> When temperatures fall to 25 to 30 degrees, a heat pump loses its spot as
>>> the most efficient heating option for an Atlanta home.
>>>
>>>
>> Apparently heat pumps have improved a lot over the last decade. This
>> article says they now work well down to -10F or lower.
>>
>
> I looked at one recently, to replace one of our furnaces. (We have one
> heat pump and two furnaces, for reasons beyond the scope of the
> discussion.) The ones they sell in Atlanta still cut out below 40 deg F.
> However, a Canadian correspondent tells me the ones in Canada use a
> geothermal heat sink rather than air. That makes sense. I saw one like that
> in Connecticut. If you could tie into underground water or a lake, you
> could use one in Antarctica, I suppose.
>
> Geothermal heat pumps and air conditioners are a lot quieter than air.
>
> This article describes geothermal heat pumps. It says they are expensive.
> I guess the other super-efficient ones are also more expensive which is why
> they are not recommended in Atlanta. We seldom have days below 40 deg F.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

I should explain that in Atlanta, when they install a heat pump, they
include a small, auxiliary, el-cheapo gas fired furnace along with it. It
seldom turns on. I don't know about Florida and other warm places.

In rural Japan where the walls are made of paper, they used to heat with
kerosene stoves. That is very dangerous, bad for your health, and just
plain crazy. It almost killed the child of a friend of mine years ago. I
hope these are seldom used today.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

> When temperatures fall to 25 to 30 degrees, a heat pump loses its spot as
>> the most efficient heating option for an Atlanta home.
>>
>>
> Apparently heat pumps have improved a lot over the last decade. This
> article says they now work well down to -10F or lower.
>

I looked at one recently, to replace one of our furnaces. (We have one heat
pump and two furnaces, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion.) The
ones they sell in Atlanta still cut out below 40 deg F. However, a Canadian
correspondent tells me the ones in Canada use a geothermal heat sink rather
than air. That makes sense. I saw one like that in Connecticut. If you
could tie into underground water or a lake, you could use one in
Antarctica, I suppose.

Geothermal heat pumps and air conditioners are a lot quieter than air.

This article describes geothermal heat pumps. It says they are expensive. I
guess the other super-efficient ones are also more expensive which is why
they are not recommended in Atlanta. We seldom have days below 40 deg F.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:23 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> However, there has been a big push to instead choose more efficient heat
>> pumps. The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices report found that to
>> drive deeper emissions cuts, the switch to heat pumps "would play an
>> essential and growing role.""
>>
>
> As I said, I am surprised heat pumps work effectively in Canada. It seems
> too cold. I think my heat pump in Atlanta cuts out below 40 deg F, and the
> aux gas heater comes on. See:
>
>
> https://www.estesair.com/blog/at-what-temperature-does-a-heat-pump-quit-working-efficiently
>
> Heat pumps do not operate as efficiently when temperatures drop to between
> 25 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit for most systems.
>
> A heat pump works best when the temperature is above 40. Once outdoor
> temperatures drop to 40 degrees, heat pumps start losing efficiency, and
> they consume more energy to do their jobs. When temperatures fall to 25 to
> 30 degrees, a heat pump loses its spot as the most efficient heating option
> for an Atlanta home.
>
>
Apparently heat pumps have improved a lot over the last decade. This
article says they now work well down to -10F or lower.

https://rmi.org/heat-pumps-a-practical-solution-for-cold-climates/

Harry

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

However, there has been a big push to instead choose more efficient heat
> pumps. The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices report found that to
> drive deeper emissions cuts, the switch to heat pumps "would play an
> essential and growing role.""
>

As I said, I am surprised heat pumps work effectively in Canada. It seems
too cold. I think my heat pump in Atlanta cuts out below 40 deg F, and the
aux gas heater comes on. See:

https://www.estesair.com/blog/at-what-temperature-does-a-heat-pump-quit-working-efficiently

Heat pumps do not operate as efficiently when temperatures drop to between
25 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit for most systems.

A heat pump works best when the temperature is above 40. Once outdoor
temperatures drop to 40 degrees, heat pumps start losing efficiency, and
they consume more energy to do their jobs. When temperatures fall to 25 to
30 degrees, a heat pump loses its spot as the most efficient heating option
for an Atlanta home.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:48 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> Oil and gas furnaces are now being banned in new construction projects in
>> parts of Canada.
>>
>
> What are they installing instead? Surely heat pumps don't work in most of
> Canada.
>
> Are they putting in resistance heaters? Those are extremely efficient. I
> find it hard to believe they would be mandated.
>
>
The bans in Canada are in Vancouver and Quebec.
The same article mentions bans in other countries.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/bans-fossil-fuel-heating-homes-1.6327113

quote "In most cases, fossil fuel combustion is being replaced with
electric heating. That can include more traditional but less efficient
options, such as baseboard heaters and electric furnaces. However, there
has been a big push to instead choose more efficient heat pumps. The
Canadian Institute for Climate Choices report found that to drive deeper
emissions cuts, the switch to heat pumps "would play an essential and
growing role.""
Harry

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:47:30 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
"My guess would be gas."

Ignore that. :(
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:47:30 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>What are they installing instead? Surely heat pumps don't work in most of
>Canada.
[snip]
My guess would be gas.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

Oil and gas furnaces are now being banned in new construction projects in
> parts of Canada.
>

What are they installing instead? Surely heat pumps don't work in most of
Canada.

Are they putting in resistance heaters? Those are extremely efficient. I
find it hard to believe they would be mandated.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

Oil and gas furnaces are now being banned in new construction projects in
parts of Canada. In some places after 2023 you won't be able to replace old
furnaces with new furnaces. This will further increase the demand for night
time electricity.

Harry

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:07 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> Yes, it will. There is no market for electricity at night.
>>>
>>
>> There is no market currently, but if more and more electricity is being
>> demanded at night wouldn't that create a market?
>>
>
> Yes, as I said, if nighttime consumption increases, I expect they will
> tweak the rates to get the most profit from it. I said, "They might tweak
> the discount, and reduce it somewhat . . ." But they have a large captive
> market for daytime consumption, with things like office buildings, grocery
> stores, shopping malls, shopping mall air conditioning, and so on. Those
> customers cannot move their consumption to night. There is probably much
> more captive consumption than consumption which could be moved to the
> night, so I expect night rates will always be lower. It resembles airplane
> seats available between midnight and 8 a.m. They are discounted because few
> people want to fly "red eye" at those hours, except for long, overnight,
> international flights.
>
> I do not think Georgia Power will continue offering the 1-cent electric
> vehicle rate for long. My guess is that it will go up to something like 5
> cents. That is the "Nights and Weekends" discounted rate, which you can
> sign up for. In return for that, the peak rate is 20 cents, which is a lot
> more than the usual rate. See:
>
>
> https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/nights-weekends.html
>
>
> https://www.georgiapower.com/content/dam/georgia-power/pdfs/electric-service-tariff-pdfs/TOU-REO-13.pdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> It resembles airplane seats available between midnight and 8 a.m. They are
> discounted because few people want to fly "red eye" at those hours . . .
>

Note that airlines have to fly some number of airplanes at night, to
position them for service the next day. They cannot terminate all nighttime
flights. (That was the situation years ago, anyway.) Since they have to
fly, they might as well sell the seats at a big discount. They resemble
Texas power companies that cannot turn off their nukes and wind turbines,
so they might as well sell the power at a deep discount, or give it away.
They are not actually giving it away; they are selling it for a flat fee,
the way an ISP sells you bandwidth, or NetFlix sells you movies. There is
no incremental extra cost for nighttime power, but it is not free.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

Yes, it will. There is no market for electricity at night.
>>
>
> There is no market currently, but if more and more electricity is being
> demanded at night wouldn't that create a market?
>

Yes, as I said, if nighttime consumption increases, I expect they will
tweak the rates to get the most profit from it. I said, "They might tweak
the discount, and reduce it somewhat . . ." But they have a large captive
market for daytime consumption, with things like office buildings, grocery
stores, shopping malls, shopping mall air conditioning, and so on. Those
customers cannot move their consumption to night. There is probably much
more captive consumption than consumption which could be moved to the
night, so I expect night rates will always be lower. It resembles airplane
seats available between midnight and 8 a.m. They are discounted because few
people want to fly "red eye" at those hours, except for long, overnight,
international flights.

I do not think Georgia Power will continue offering the 1-cent electric
vehicle rate for long. My guess is that it will go up to something like 5
cents. That is the "Nights and Weekends" discounted rate, which you can
sign up for. In return for that, the peak rate is 20 cents, which is a lot
more than the usual rate. See:

https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/nights-weekends.html

https://www.georgiapower.com/content/dam/georgia-power/pdfs/electric-service-tariff-pdfs/TOU-REO-13.pdf

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:52 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> CB Sites  wrote:
>
> I will confirm what @Jed Rothwell  is saying as an
>> EV owner.   90% of my travel is inner city 30miles or less all stop and
>> go.  Just an overnight charge on a 110v plugin charger and good to go.
>> I've not seen a noticble change in my electric bill.  It's like driving for
>> free.
>>
>
> I had one for several months. It was great. With the pandemic, I closed my
> office, moved home, and gave the car to my daughter. She loves it!
>
>
> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> What happens when everyone who currently owns a gasoline car buys an
>> electric car and
>> is charging overnight? Would it make sense for the utility companies to
>> continue offering huge discounts for over night charging?
>>
>
> Yes, it will. There is no market for electricity at night.
>

There is no market currently, but if more and more electricity is being
demanded at night wouldn't that create a market?

Harry




> Either they sell it cheap, or they don't sell it at all. It is like
> running a grocery store and having to throw away produce that no one buys,
> or flying an airplane with half the seats empty. You never get back the
> unsold seats.
>
> Perhaps the one-cent deep discount in Atlanta will go up in price closer
> to the daytime cost, but it is not going back to the full rate.
>
> There is no way the Texas companies will start charging for nighttime
> electricity. It costs them more to get rid of it than to give it away for
> free. They charge a fixed fee for service. They resemble an internet
> service provider that finds it cheaper to give unlimited bandwidth to most
> customers than to try to limit it. Nighttime electricity in Texas really is
> "too cheap to meter" (as predicted by Strauss in 1954).
>
> The power companies do not offer these rates as a favor, or out of the
> goodness of their corporate heart.
>
>
> The Texas power is from wind and nukes, which you cannot turn off easily.
> I guess you can feather the wind turbines . . . Anyway, they make more
> money giving away electricity and collecting a monthly fee. A business
> model like an ISP, or NetFlix.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is one of many examples of free nighttime electricity in Texas:

https://comparepower.com/electricity-rates/texas/free-electricity/

There is a lot of competition in the Texas electric power market, so many
companies offer this.

As I said, this is a good business model, not a favor to the customers. Not
idealism. I compared it to NetFlix. You might also compare it to a big
commercial bakery such as Entenmann's that runs an outlet store. They
sometimes sell discounted day-old pastries and bread. I guess they don't
make much profit, but it is better than throwing away the food and making
no money at all. The trick is to avoid cannibalizing the market for fresh
pastry. Try not to have large production overruns. Do not make old pastry
so cheap, tasty and available in such large quantities that many customers
say: "I won't buy the fresh Entenmann cake in the grocery; I'll buy the
discounted older cakes at their outlet." In Texas, the power companies want
some customers to run their air conditioners and washing machines at night,
to use electricity they would have to throw away otherwise. But the power
companies do not want everyone, everywhere to move to nighttime use. They
want to sell electricity during the day at premium rates. They know there
is a market for that. Corporations, car dealerships and so on are open
during the day. They have no use for electricity at night. It is a captive
market. Many people prefer fresh Entenmann cakes and will pay a premium for
them at a grocery store, so the discount outlets do not threaten their
existing business.

Anyway, that is why I am confident the power companies will continue to
offer discounted rates as electric cars become more common. They might
tweak the discount, and reduce it somewhat, as nighttime use increases. If
they raise the nighttime rate too much, many people and corporations might
install solar panels and charge the cars during the day. Plus, as I said,
in Texas other power companies will poach their customers.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

As things now stand, automobile drivers are getting a free ride. That's not
> fair.
>
> Toll roads/bridges?  License/registration fees?  Gasoline taxes?


I don't know. We should see how they do it in London, England.

I paid a bridge toll in New York state just by driving past an array of
cameras. The bill came in the mail. Atlanta now has variable rate toll
roads. You have to have a "Peach Pass" gadget in your car to use them. I
don't have one, and I don't know how the gadget works.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Regarding hydrogen vehicles and safe fission reactors, over at LENR Forum I
wrote:

It may be possible to develop safe fission reactors. I cannot judge. Some
experts say pebble bed reactors might be safe. However, we know for a fact
that solar panels are safe, and they can produce electricity much more
cheaply than fission. Probably cheaper than pebble bed reactors. So why
spend a ton of money inventing safe fission reactors now? We don't need
them anymore. If they had been invented before solar PV fell in price, we
could have used them. No doubt they would have some advantages, such as
being more compact, with less overall material needed.

Any technology has advantages and disadvantages. Years after integrated
transistors were invented, Ken Shoulders and Charles Spindt invented
special purpose chip with microscopic vacuum tubes on it. Spindt told me it
was better for some purposes than transistors. If they had come up with
that in 1955, perhaps we would not have needed integrated transistor chips.
Not for a while, anyway.

Suppose Toyota had come up with the Mirai hydrogen fuel cell car in 1990.
It might be cheap and widespread by now, and we might have hydrogen gas
stations everywhere. It has a better range than today's electric cars.
Hydrogen made by some processes is renewable and not polluting. Hydrogen
fuel cell cars might have progressed faster than electric cars, eliminating
the need for electric cars. That's one of history's might-have-beens. It
didn't happen, and now it is too late for the Mirai hydrogen fuel cell
approach. Electric cars may not have been inherently better in 1990. They
might have lost the competition. But they won, and you cannot undo that. A
winning technology develops economic and technical momentum. It becomes a
standard, as more and more people buy it, and mechanics learn to deal with
it. Mechanics and automobile companies can only afford to support one or
two technical standards -- gasoline and electric. They cannot afford to
manufacture, sell and service another standard such as hydrogen fuel cells.

RE: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Chris Zell]

As things now stand, automobile drivers are getting a free ride. That's not 
fair.

Toll roads/bridges?  License/registration fees?  Gasoline taxes?

CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

"Free rider."
>
> I think public transport should be free too.
> but of course it won't really be free. The costs will be borne by the
> taxpayer.
>

Public transport is a lot cheaper than roads, highways and the damage
caused by automobiles. So it would be best to make public transport free
and charge $10 or $20 to anyone who wants to drive a car in Atlanta or
New York City. In London drivers have to pay £11.50 daily charge. That
seems reasonable to me.

As things now stand, automobile drivers are getting a free ride. That's not
fair.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jones Beene]

H LV wrote:  
 "Free rider." ...  I think public transport should be free too.but of course 
it won't really be free. 

Few thins are really free, of course especially if carbon fuel is consumed. But 
basic transportation can be much smarter and less costly, perhaps fuel-free and 
out-of-pocket free. Plus, as Elon sez -- a massive societal  shift can take 
place in a relatively short time frame. Soon!

There has been a lot of speculation online about one or more 'new paradigms' 
for automotive transportation. Many assume some kind of sharing to cover added 
costs, along with battery power, low emissions from shared solar and even 
shared-AI being a part of the total package. And of course LENR could make 
things much more interesting since the car and it battery storage capability 
will be capable of providing electricity to the homes involved. 

Critics call this kind of talk neo-Marxist, but a substantial financial benefit 
could indeed end up favoring the limit4ed situation where the net cost of 
automobile ownership becomes indeed "free" in one way accounting... 
commies-be-damned. The refusniks will be the last to profit. 

This is actually paer of the logical end-game merger of Capitalism with 
Marxism. Sure - the family car will never disappear - nor will fossil fuel, 
especially in rural areas and the Third World - but the types of shared 
ownership and common usage controlled by AI are flexible and real. 

If and when we move closer to a work-at-home society, then the value of space 
is multiplied - even garage space becomes so valuable that monetizing extra 
space could actually "pay" for basic transportation.This is already true in a 
few big cities.

The scenario which I favor combines full self-driving (self parking and self 
recharging ) with shared neighborhood ownership and hydrogen power via LENR and 
an advanced local AI network where say a dozen vehicles are shared by a dozen 
like-minded households who also get much of their electrical power from the 
cars - which can actially be parked miles away.

Dream on ! 

...and wait till the next April fools prediction by Elon where he actually buys 
into LENR...




  

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

"Free rider."

I think public transport should be free too.
but of course it won't really be free. The costs will be borne by the
taxpayer.

Harry

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:51 PM CB Sites  wrote:

> I will confirm what @Jed Rothwell  is saying as an
> EV owner.   90% of my travel is inner city 30miles or less all stop and
> go.  Just an overnight charge on a 110v plugin charger and good to go.
> I've not seen a noticble change in my electric bill.  It's like driving for
> free.
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 6:42 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't see the point. Why spend four times more money than you need to?
>>> Electric cars are far cheaper per mile.
>>>
>>
>> It is actually 5.6 times more money per mile, because the power companies
>> offer a huge discount for recharging overnight. In Atlanta, the power
>> company estimates it costs $19 a month to charge an electric car versus
>> $107 per month for a gasoline car. See:
>>
>>
>> https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/plug-in-ev.html
>>
>> As I mentioned, in parts of Texas the cost is $0.00 per month. Granted,
>> they also charge a flat fee for electricity, but the incremental additional
>> cost of charging an electric car at night is zero. You can't beat that! The
>> oil companies cannot compete with that. Which is why they will not be
>> selling gasoline cars much longer. People will not pay for Exxonmobil for
>> something that the power company gives you for free.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

What happens when everyone who currently owns a gasoline car buys an
electric car and
is charging overnight? Would it make sense for the utility companies to
continue offering huge discounts for over night charging?

Harry

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:42 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> I don't see the point. Why spend four times more money than you need to?
>> Electric cars are far cheaper per mile.
>>
>
> It is actually 5.6 times more money per mile, because the power companies
> offer a huge discount for recharging overnight. In Atlanta, the power
> company estimates it costs $19 a month to charge an electric car versus
> $107 per month for a gasoline car. See:
>
>
> https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/plug-in-ev.html
>
> As I mentioned, in parts of Texas the cost is $0.00 per month. Granted,
> they also charge a flat fee for electricity, but the incremental additional
> cost of charging an electric car at night is zero. You can't beat that! The
> oil companies cannot compete with that. Which is why they will not be
> selling gasoline cars much longer. People will not pay for Exxonmobil for
> something that the power company gives you for free.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[CB Sites]

I will confirm what @Jed Rothwell  is saying as an
EV owner.   90% of my travel is inner city 30miles or less all stop and
go.  Just an overnight charge on a 110v plugin charger and good to go.
I've not seen a noticble change in my electric bill.  It's like driving for
free.

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 6:42 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> I don't see the point. Why spend four times more money than you need to?
>> Electric cars are far cheaper per mile.
>>
>
> It is actually 5.6 times more money per mile, because the power companies
> offer a huge discount for recharging overnight. In Atlanta, the power
> company estimates it costs $19 a month to charge an electric car versus
> $107 per month for a gasoline car. See:
>
>
> https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/plug-in-ev.html
>
> As I mentioned, in parts of Texas the cost is $0.00 per month. Granted,
> they also charge a flat fee for electricity, but the incremental additional
> cost of charging an electric car at night is zero. You can't beat that! The
> oil companies cannot compete with that. Which is why they will not be
> selling gasoline cars much longer. People will not pay for Exxonmobil for
> something that the power company gives you for free.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:28 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

>
> On 05.04.2022 22:11, H LV wrote:
> > Synthetic fuels can be used in existing gas stations.
>
>
> This is repeating classic nonsense.


Maybe it is undesirable, but it is not nonsense.



> Also synthetic fuel produces NOx
> what destroys everything. It leads to over fertilization of forests what
> destroys the filigree relation between trees and soil fungus, what makes
> them falling early in storms... NOx produces Ozone what attacks
> everything including your lung. Ask the Wuhan people that at time of the
> CoV-19 outbreak did live > 20x above the allowed limit.
>
>
This link is about DME (dimethyl ether) as a synthetic fuel.
According to this article it burns _very_ cleanly. I am not an expert in
these matters
so they might not be stating the whole truth.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.663331/full

begin quote << Work by Willems at Ford has shown that in engine tests, not
only is there zero SOx emissions associated with DME fuels (because the
fuel is not fossil-derived) but due to the reduced carbon content in the
molecules compared to diesel, CO2 emissions can be as low as 3 g/km,
compared to EU 2020 standard diesel car emissions of 95 g/km (European
Council directive, 443/2009; European Council directive, 443/2009).
Furthermore, as less air is needed and the flame temperature is lower there
are practically zero NOx emissions, and because there are no C-C bonds in
the ether molecules particulate matter (PM or soot) is also practically
zero (Lee et al., 2016). Therefore, compared to current electricity grid
mixes and emissions in power generation for EVs, the full scope life cycle
emissions for DME-CIVs could be considerably lower.>> end quote

Harry

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I don't see the point. Why spend four times more money than you need to?
> Electric cars are far cheaper per mile.
>

It is actually 5.6 times more money per mile, because the power companies
offer a huge discount for recharging overnight. In Atlanta, the power
company estimates it costs $19 a month to charge an electric car versus
$107 per month for a gasoline car. See:

https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-plans/pricing-and-rate-plans/plug-in-ev.html

As I mentioned, in parts of Texas the cost is $0.00 per month. Granted,
they also charge a flat fee for electricity, but the incremental additional
cost of charging an electric car at night is zero. You can't beat that! The
oil companies cannot compete with that. Which is why they will not be
selling gasoline cars much longer. People will not pay for Exxonmobil for
something that the power company gives you for free.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Nearly all new generating capacity is renewable, because that is almost
> the cheapest. Aeroderivative natural gas is the cheapest at $1,294 base
> overnight cost, but solar PV is $1,327. . . .
>

See also:

Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating
capacity in 2022 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 in case that link
don't link.

>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 05.04.2022 22:11, H LV wrote:

Synthetic fuels can be used in existing gas stations.



This is repeating classic nonsense. Also synthetic fuel produces NOx 
what destroys everything. It leads to over fertilization of forests what 
destroys the filigree relation between trees and soil fungus, what makes 
them falling early in storms... NOx produces Ozone what attacks 
everything including your lung. Ask the Wuhan people that at time of the 
CoV-19 outbreak did live > 20x above the allowed limit.


There simply is no future for carbon except in fuel cells as Methanol.

J.W.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> What on earth do you mean?
>>
>>
>
> A few examples:
> --Volatile organic compounds
>
> https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality
>
> --Farming without disturbing soil could cut agriculture’s climate impact
> by 30%
>
> https://theconversation.com/farming-without-disturbing-soil-could-cut-agricultures-climate-impact-by-30-new-
> research-157153
>

Those have nothing to do with energy production. I was only talking about
electricity and transportation energy.



> Why? What's the point? Electric cars will soon be cheaper, more reliable,
>> four times more energy efficient, and better for the environment. What's
>> not to like?
>>
>>
> Synthetic fuels can be used in existing gas stations.
>

I don't see the point. Why spend four times more money than you need to?
Electric cars are far cheaper per mile. They will soon cost less for the
vehicle itself, over the life of the car. Why spend a whole lot more money
than you need to? Who is going to do that? People are never inclined to
spend extra money for obsolete technology. They won't have much of a choice
either, soon. After ~10% of cars are electric, gas stations will begin
going out of business in droves. They have a thin profit margin. In a
generation, garages will not have parts for gasoline cars, and mechanics
will not know how to fix them. Owning one will be as inconvenient as owning
a vacuum tube radio.



> Older apartments and houses wouldn't need to be electrically upgraded.
>

In Atlanta, they only need to be upgraded if the wiring is 50 years or more
old. (Mine was! It was a good thing we upgraded, because the old wiring had
scorched the walls.) It does not call for a lot of amps. Exactly as many as
a 240 VAC clothes dryer, which any house can have.



> Powering heavy machinery with batteries is still unfeasible. Even more so
> in remote locations.
>

That's true. Heavy machinery and aircraft will be the last vehicles to be
converted to electricity. If they ever are. Coal mining mega-trucks, for
example . . . oh wait. We will not need them. Okay, iron ore mega-trucks.

https://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-biggest-mining-dump-trucks/

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:46 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> Everything we do involves gaseous exchanges with the atmosphere.
>>
>
> What?!? Solar and hydroelectricity do not. Wind power does, in a sense,
> but it does not measurably affect the wind (the movement of air heated by
> the sun). Fission definitely does not involve gaseous exchanges, unless the
> reactor blows up like in Chernobyl or Fukushima.
>
> What on earth do you mean?
>
>

A few examples:
--Volatile organic compounds
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

--Farming without disturbing soil could cut agriculture’s climate impact by
30%
https://theconversation.com/farming-without-disturbing-soil-could-cut-agricultures-climate-impact-by-30-new-
research-157153

--Carbon dioxide is emitted as a by-product of clinker production, an
intermediate product in cement manufacture, in which calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) is calcinated and converted to lime (CaO), the primary component of
cement.
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_1_Cement_Production.pdf

--Methane and carbon dioxide make up 90 to 98% of landfill gas. The
remaining 2 to 10% includes nitrogen, oxygen, ammonia, sulfides, hydrogen
and various other gases. Landfill gases are produced when bacteria break
down organic waste.
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/landfill_gas.htm

>
> We aren't going to bring about an end to gaseous exchanges by replacing
>> air breathing vehicles with non-air breathing vehicles.
>>
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that.
>
>

See the examples above.

>
>
>> What we should be doing is researching and designing more sustainable air
>> breathing machines
>>
>
> Why? What's the point? Electric cars will soon be cheaper, more reliable,
> four times more energy efficient, and better for the environment. What's
> not to like?
>
>
Synthetic fuels can be used in existing gas stations.
Older apartments and houses wouldn't need to be electrically upgraded.
Powering heavy machinery with batteries is still unfeasible. Even more so
in remote locations.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Toyota has sold more than 50'000 Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.
>
Where did you find that number? They have sold 9,978 in the U.S., which is
more than I expected.

https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/toyota-mirai-sales-figures-usa-canada-monthly-yearly/

I think there is no future for this car, or this technology. It is too
late. It will never compete with electric cars. I think the hybrid and
plug-in hybrid are also obsolescent. Toyota put all the Prius patents into
the public domain because they are hoping other companies buy hybrid engine
parts from Toyota. They want to cash in on the technology now, before it
goes away.

Hydrogen vehicles might have been a good idea at some point. They might
have made sense. But, improvements to batteries put electric vehicles ahead
of them. There is generally only room in a market for two viable
technologies at a time: gasoline and electric; PC or Mac computer. Once a
technology falls into third place or fourth place, it seldom recovers.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Toyota has sold more than 50'000 Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

These cars have the highest range 800km and do not suffer from the 
winter dip of Li-ion battery power. Further a fuel cell produce still 
50% heat for your car...


Currently we have 155 fuel stations in central Europe :: https://h2.live/

Toyota did even sell more fuel cells for stabilizing the Japanese grid.

The problems of Hydrogen are:

You have to compress it to 350 Bar - costs energy

You have to find an efficient electrolysis process (now soon close to 90%).

If you can do electrolysis under pressure then you get a pre-compression 
of up to 10-20 Bar.


But wind turbines work for nothing for long periods so this in the best 
case is a grid waste free energy deal!


J.W.

On 05.04.2022 21:13, David L. Babcock wrote:
Is anyone considering bottled hydrogen sold at gas stations? Was 
surfing and saw a link about  nearly indestructible plastic containers 
for powering -I think it was- heavy construction equipment.
Think one gallon propane tanks. Available in many/most gas  stations. 
So neatly identical that you just swap an empty for a full, without 
regard for either the brand of  the tank or the brand of your auto. 
Quite expensive compared  to a propane tank because safety, but the 
market is rapidly expandable. No pipelines, no underground tanks, 
transport is by ordinary truck -not even tankers.

I imagine that four or six bottles might be needed for a fillup.
These same bottles would serve many of the other  petrochemical 
markets, replacing acetylene and propane for instance.


On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 3:40 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Jones Beene  wrote:

Prior to this there had been and remains a nascent movement
around the idea that hydrogen made from wind or solar was
going to be our savior on the energy front - despite the
intractable poor economics involved in the manufacture and
storage.


The economics are poor. I expect this technology will never catch
up with things like solar combined with battery storage. But I do
not know if the problems are "intractable." If we had no
alternatives, the problems might be tractable. But there is now no
economic incentive to solve these problems. In that sense,
hydrogen from solar or wind resembles concentrated solar power
systems, such as Ivanpah or SEGS in the U.S., and various
installations in Morocco and Spain. If the cost of PV solar had
not fallen so drastically, concentrated solar power might have
been competitive long enough to develop it and lower the cost. It
often happens that whatever technology shows up first wins the
competition just because it was first. This is known as
"incumbency." See p. 63:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Hydrogen might have been used as a method of storing solar or wind
power. Or as a method of transporting energy via pipeline from low
population windy places such as North Dakota to population
centers. That might still happen, but I doubt it. I do not think
there is any chance that hydrogen will be used for transportation
with fuel cells. The Toyota Mirai car is an example of that
(https://www.toyota.com/mirai/). It will never work because you
would have to have hydrogen fuel stations everywhere. An electric
car can be charged at home. Or you can install a charger anywhere,
because electric power is available everywhere. But a hydrogen
powered vehicle must be refueled at a hydrogen gas station. It
would cost huge amounts to build enough hydrogen stations. I think
the era of chemically fueled ground transportation is rapidly
coming to an end. It will all be battery powered electric soon.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

David L. Babcock  wrote:

Is anyone considering bottled hydrogen sold at gas stations?
>

I think that would cost a great deal of money. It takes a lot of gas to
power an automobile. Think about how large the underground tanks of
gasoline are in a regular gas station.

In Japan they have tried a variety of methods. They had an experimental
hydrogen fueling station near a university that used electrolysis, so it
needed only water and electricity. Unfortunately, it exploded. I saw a
photo of it before the explosion. It looked complicated and expensive.

Fueling stations are projected to cost between $1 and $3 million each,
depending on capacity. See p. 12:

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1506613

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[David L. Babcock]

Is anyone considering bottled hydrogen sold at gas stations? Was surfing
and saw a link about  nearly indestructible plastic containers for powering
-I think it was- heavy construction equipment.
Think one gallon propane tanks. Available in many/most gas  stations. So
neatly identical that you just swap an empty for a full, without regard for
either the brand of  the tank or the brand of your auto. Quite expensive
compared  to a propane tank because safety, but the market is rapidly
expandable. No pipelines, no underground tanks, transport is by ordinary
truck -not even tankers.
I imagine that four or six bottles might be needed for a fillup.
These same bottles would serve many of the other  petrochemical markets,
replacing acetylene and propane for instance.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 3:40 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>
>> Prior to this there had been and remains a nascent movement around the
>> idea that hydrogen made from wind or solar was going to be our savior on
>> the energy front - despite the intractable poor economics involved in the
>> manufacture and storage.
>>
>
> The economics are poor. I expect this technology will never catch up with
> things like solar combined with battery storage. But I do not know if the
> problems are "intractable." If we had no alternatives, the problems might
> be tractable. But there is now no economic incentive to solve these
> problems. In that sense, hydrogen from solar or wind resembles concentrated
> solar power systems, such as Ivanpah or SEGS in the U.S., and various
> installations in Morocco and Spain. If the cost of PV solar had not fallen
> so drastically, concentrated solar power might have been competitive long
> enough to develop it and lower the cost. It often happens that whatever
> technology shows up first wins the competition just because it was first.
> This is known as "incumbency." See p. 63:
>
> https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
>
> Hydrogen might have been used as a method of storing solar or wind power.
> Or as a method of transporting energy via pipeline from low population
> windy places such as North Dakota to population centers. That might still
> happen, but I doubt it. I do not think there is any chance that hydrogen
> will be used for transportation with fuel cells. The Toyota Mirai car is an
> example of that (https://www.toyota.com/mirai/). It will never work
> because you would have to have hydrogen fuel stations everywhere. An
> electric car can be charged at home. Or you can install a charger anywhere,
> because electric power is available everywhere. But a hydrogen powered
> vehicle must be refueled at a hydrogen gas station. It would cost huge
> amounts to build enough hydrogen stations. I think the era of chemically
> fueled ground transportation is rapidly coming to an end. It will all be
> battery powered electric soon.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

Everything we do involves gaseous exchanges with the atmosphere.
>

What?!? Solar and hydroelectricity do not. Wind power does, in a sense, but
it does not measurably affect the wind (the movement of air heated by the
sun). Fission definitely does not involve gaseous exchanges, unless the
reactor blows up like in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

What on earth do you mean?


We aren't going to bring about an end to gaseous exchanges by replacing air
> breathing vehicles with non-air breathing vehicles.
>

I have no idea what you mean by that.



> What we should be doing is researching and designing more sustainable air
> breathing machines
>

Why? What's the point? Electric cars will soon be cheaper, more reliable,
four times more energy efficient, and better for the environment. What's
not to like?

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

Everything we do involves gaseous exchanges with the atmosphere. We aren't
going to bring about an end to gaseous exchanges by replacing air breathing
vehicles with non-air breathing vehicles.

What we should be doing is researching and designing more sustainable air
breathing machines instead of willy nilly declaring such approaches off
limits because their pedigree was not so clean.  I don't think we should
abandon nascent technologies like hydrogen and synthetic fuels just because
they aren't currently cost effective. I mean if that were true then solar
cells should have been abandoned decades ago.

Harry



On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:32 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> I don't mean to sound pedantic but the term "chemically fueled" could
>> apply to just about any vehicle except one powered by nuclear power.
>>
>
> I don't mean to sound pedantic, but all cars are nuclear powered. Fossil
> fuel cars are powered by the sun's fusion millions of years ago; wind,
> solar or hydroelectric cars are powered by the sun hours or months ago.
>
> I think it was clear I meant powered directly by chemical reactions.
>
>

> For example vehicles which use batteries or fuel cells both rely on
>> chemical reactions to generate electricity.
>>
>
> Well, they rely on chemical fuel 60% during the day. See:
>
> https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php#
>
> Most electric vehicles are recharged overnight, so they are mainly nuclear
> or wind powered. In large parts of Texas they are entirely recharged by
> wind, for free. (The power companies offer free electricity at night, plus
> they have a base monthly charge.)
>
>
>
>> What seems to be happening with the push for battery driven electric
>> vehicles is nothing less than a comprehensive suspicion, disgust and
>> possible hatred of all air breathing vehicles.
>>
>
> People hate air breathing vehicles for good reasons. Mainly:
>
> They are four times less energy efficient.
>
> The vehicles themselves are much more complicated and difficult to
> maintain. When the technology matures, electric vehicles will be cheaper
> over the life of the vehicle.
>
> Even for electric power generation, fossil fuel is more expensive than
> wind or solar, and it causes many more problems including: damage from
> fracking and coal mining; damage from ash; particulate pollution; global
> warming; enriching our enemies such as Putin.
>
> Nearly all new generating capacity is renewable, because that is almost
> the cheapest. Aeroderivative natural gas is the cheapest at $1,294 base
> overnight cost, but solar PV is $1,327. A slight increase in natural gas
> costs, or a slight decrease in PV costs will make solar the cheapest. The
> cost of solar and wind are more stable and predictable than natural gas.
> The cost of sunlight will not increase, whereas natural gas costs have
> increased thanks to Putin. Coal and fission cannot begin to compete. Solar
> thermal cannot compete. It is probably one of history's might-have-beens.
>
> See Table 1:
>
> https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> I don't mean to sound pedantic but the term "chemically fueled" could
> apply to just about any vehicle except one powered by nuclear power.
>

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but all cars are nuclear powered. Fossil
fuel cars are powered by the sun's fusion millions of years ago; wind,
solar or hydroelectric cars are powered by the sun hours or months ago.

I think it was clear I meant powered directly by chemical reactions.



> For example vehicles which use batteries or fuel cells both rely on
> chemical reactions to generate electricity.
>

Well, they rely on chemical fuel 60% during the day. See:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php#

Most electric vehicles are recharged overnight, so they are mainly nuclear
or wind powered. In large parts of Texas they are entirely recharged by
wind, for free. (The power companies offer free electricity at night, plus
they have a base monthly charge.)



> What seems to be happening with the push for battery driven electric
> vehicles is nothing less than a comprehensive suspicion, disgust and
> possible hatred of all air breathing vehicles.
>

People hate air breathing vehicles for good reasons. Mainly:

They are four times less energy efficient.

The vehicles themselves are much more complicated and difficult to
maintain. When the technology matures, electric vehicles will be cheaper
over the life of the vehicle.

Even for electric power generation, fossil fuel is more expensive than wind
or solar, and it causes many more problems including: damage from fracking
and coal mining; damage from ash; particulate pollution; global warming;
enriching our enemies such as Putin.

Nearly all new generating capacity is renewable, because that is almost the
cheapest. Aeroderivative natural gas is the cheapest at $1,294 base
overnight cost, but solar PV is $1,327. A slight increase in natural gas
costs, or a slight decrease in PV costs will make solar the cheapest. The
cost of solar and wind are more stable and predictable than natural gas.
The cost of sunlight will not increase, whereas natural gas costs have
increased thanks to Putin. Coal and fission cannot begin to compete. Solar
thermal cannot compete. It is probably one of history's might-have-beens.

See Table 1:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[H LV]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:40 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  An electric car can be charged at home. Or you can install a charger
> anywhere, because electric power is available everywhere. But a hydrogen
> powered vehicle must be refueled at a hydrogen gas station. It would cost
> huge amounts to build enough hydrogen stations. I think the era of
> chemically fueled ground transportation is rapidly coming to an end. It
> will all be battery powered electric soon.
>
>
I don't mean to sound pedantic but the term "chemically fueled" could apply
to just about any vehicle except one powered by nuclear power. For example
vehicles which use batteries or fuel cells both rely on chemical reactions
to generate electricity. What seems to be happening with the push for
battery driven electric vehicles is nothing less than a comprehensive
suspicion, disgust and possible hatred of all air breathing vehicles.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Terry Blanton]

The question was regarding BEVs only.  ICE's cheat on heat.  :)

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:08 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-temperature-affects-ev-range
>>
>
> A cold outdoor temperature has a drastic effect on a Prius or a purely
> electric car. But the air conditioner does not.
>
> With a Prius in winter, efficiency is very low until the engine warms up,
> after about 2 miles at 35 mph.
>
> I mean a regular Prius, not a plug-in model.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-temperature-affects-ev-range
>

A cold outdoor temperature has a drastic effect on a Prius or a purely
electric car. But the air conditioner does not.

With a Prius in winter, efficiency is very low until the engine warms up,
after about 2 miles at 35 mph.

I mean a regular Prius, not a plug-in model.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Terry Blanton]

https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-temperature-affects-ev-range

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:58 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> It depends on whether the vehicle uses conventional HVAC or a heat
> exchanger.  It can be as high as 40%.
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:27 PM Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 4 Apr 2022 18:40:01 -0400:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been wondering by how much does heating/aircon lower the range of
>> electric vehicles? Anyone have a rough idea?
>>
>> [snip]
>> >enough hydrogen stations. I think the era of chemically fueled ground
>> >transportation is rapidly coming to an end. It will all be battery
>> powered
>> >electric soon.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk 
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:

I have been wondering by how much does heating/aircon lower the range of
> electric vehicles? Anyone have a rough idea?
>

Hardly any. Soon after the Prius was introduced, some engineers studied
this when trying to achieve miles per gallon distance records. As I recall,
in most cases they could not measure the effect of the air conditioner. In
some cases they found that leaving the air conditioning on was more
efficient than leaving the windows open. The drag from an open window
consumed more energy than the air-conditioning. Air conditioners in modern
cars such as the Prius are very efficient. Granted, they were not driving
through Death Valley.

Heating is done with waste heat from the engine, so it does not reduce
efficiency at all. Except for the blower motor.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Terry Blanton]

It depends on whether the vehicle uses conventional HVAC or a heat
exchanger.  It can be as high as 40%.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:27 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 4 Apr 2022 18:40:01 -0400:
> Hi,
>
> I have been wondering by how much does heating/aircon lower the range of
> electric vehicles? Anyone have a rough idea?
>
> [snip]
> >enough hydrogen stations. I think the era of chemically fueled ground
> >transportation is rapidly coming to an end. It will all be battery powered
> >electric soon.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 4 Apr 2022 18:40:01 -0400:
Hi,

I have been wondering by how much does heating/aircon lower the range of 
electric vehicles? Anyone have a rough idea?

[snip]
>enough hydrogen stations. I think the era of chemically fueled ground
>transportation is rapidly coming to an end. It will all be battery powered
>electric soon.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Terry Blanton]

H2 transport in NG pipelines:


> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452321618302683
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Prior to this there had been and remains a nascent movement around the
> idea that hydrogen made from wind or solar was going to be our savior on
> the energy front - despite the intractable poor economics involved in the
> manufacture and storage.
>

The economics are poor. I expect this technology will never catch up with
things like solar combined with battery storage. But I do not know if the
problems are "intractable." If we had no alternatives, the problems might
be tractable. But there is now no economic incentive to solve these
problems. In that sense, hydrogen from solar or wind resembles concentrated
solar power systems, such as Ivanpah or SEGS in the U.S., and various
installations in Morocco and Spain. If the cost of PV solar had not fallen
so drastically, concentrated solar power might have been competitive long
enough to develop it and lower the cost. It often happens that whatever
technology shows up first wins the competition just because it was first.
This is known as "incumbency." See p. 63:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Hydrogen might have been used as a method of storing solar or wind power.
Or as a method of transporting energy via pipeline from low population
windy places such as North Dakota to population centers. That might still
happen, but I doubt it. I do not think there is any chance that hydrogen
will be used for transportation with fuel cells. The Toyota Mirai car is an
example of that (https://www.toyota.com/mirai/). It will never work because
you would have to have hydrogen fuel stations everywhere. An electric car
can be charged at home. Or you can install a charger anywhere, because
electric power is available everywhere. But a hydrogen powered vehicle must
be refueled at a hydrogen gas station. It would cost huge amounts to build
enough hydrogen stations. I think the era of chemically fueled ground
transportation is rapidly coming to an end. It will all be battery powered
electric soon.

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Jones Beene]

 There is a backstory that makes the Musk Apr1 farcical endorsement of hydrogen 
more curious to those on this list.
Elon had done a rather solid and logical interview a few months back - it's on 
YTube - in which he strongly put down the notion that H2 had any chance to 
become a future transportation fuel due to intrinsic high cost - much less that 
it would be a preferred way to replace batteries. 

On the surface, he has billions tied up in an anti-H agenda... but ... but... 
this is Elon Mush who is talking, and one suspects that he is the kind of guy 
who would change horses midstream in a heartbeat and find a way to profit. 
Notably, he does not mind being wrong.

Prior to this there had been and remains a nascent movement around the idea 
that hydrogen made from wind or solar was going to be our savior on the energy 
front - despite the intractable poor economics involved in the manufacture and 
storage. 

Anyway, as we know - the main pending but unproved R prospect which could 
change things, including Elon's mind ... (and he has been known to pivot on 
such things in the past)... would be if he had witnessed one of the LENR, 
dense-H  or hydrino developments such as Clean Planet or maybe BLP. In either 
one of those Hydrogen again becomes the savior of our lifestyle... perhaps in 
the form of  "water fuel" which bypasses the H supply problem
If you had invented a functional watercar would not your first contact to 
promote it be Elon?


MSF wrote:  
I believe your olfactory skills are not required to determine this is an April 
Fools prank. It fairly screams its silly nature, especially the hydrogen rocket 
boost. If any doubt remains, the idea that you must pay in Dogecoin drives the 
nail into it.

 --- Original Message ---

 
 
https://www.whichev.net/2022/04/01/elon-musk-announces-tesla-will-switch-to-hydrogen-in-2024/
 

   

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[MSF]

I believe your olfactory skills are not required to determine this is an April 
Fools prank. It fairly screams its silly nature, especially the hydrogen rocket 
boost. If any doubt remains, the idea that you must pay in Dogecoin drives the 
nail into it.

--- Original Message ---
On Saturday, April 2nd, 2022 at 1:36 AM, Jones Beene  
wrote:

> https://www.whichev.net/2022/04/01/elon-musk-announces-tesla-will-switch-to-hydrogen-in-2024/

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[Terry Blanton]

Another:

https://carbuzz.com/news/canceled-tesla-cybertruck-is-dead

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:37 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> https://www.whichev.net/2022/04/01/elon-musk-announces-tesla-will-switch-to-hydrogen-in-2024/
>

Re: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

[ROGER ANDERTON]

well the link to place an advance order -> doesn't go to that


so, therefore infer joke


-- Original Message --
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: "vortex" 
Sent: Saturday, 2 Apr, 22 At 02:36
Subject: [Vo]:This smells like an April 1 joke

https://www.whichev.net/2022/04/01/elon-musk-announces-tesla-will-switch-to-hydrogen-in-2024/