Planet Rugby Forum

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:13 pm I bet you didn't think the internet was going to have a massive impact I bet you derided those that said it was going to change everything. I bet you didn't want rugby to go pro. I bet you didn't want sponsors names on jerseys. I bet you were against gay marriage and I bet you support the monarchy.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:13 pm I bet you didn't think the internet was going to have a massive impact I bet you derided those that said it was going to change everything. I bet you didn't want rugby to go pro. I bet you didn't want sponsors names on jerseys. I bet you were against gay marriage and I bet you support the monarchy.

I don't want sponsors names on jerseys.

At least not Test jerseys.

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:47 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:13 pm I bet you didn't think the internet was going to have a massive impact I bet you derided those that said it was going to change everything. I bet you didn't want rugby to go pro. I bet you didn't want sponsors names on jerseys. I bet you were against gay marriage and I bet you support the monarchy.

I don't want sponsors names on jerseys.

At least not Test jerseys.

Mine was the Monarchy, where I’m not really supportive but can’t think of anything better.

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:03 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:47 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:13 pm I bet you didn't think the internet was going to have a massive impact I bet you derided those that said it was going to change everything. I bet you didn't want rugby to go pro. I bet you didn't want sponsors names on jerseys. I bet you were against gay marriage and I bet you support the monarchy.

I don't want sponsors names on jerseys.

At least not Test jerseys.

Mine was the Monarchy, where I’m not really supportive but can’t think of anything better.

Conservatives usually don’t think of better things.

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:05 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:03 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:47 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:13 pm I bet you didn't think the internet was going to have a massive impact I bet you derided those that said it was going to change everything. I bet you didn't want rugby to go pro. I bet you didn't want sponsors names on jerseys. I bet you were against gay marriage and I bet you support the monarchy.

I don't want sponsors names on jerseys.

At least not Test jerseys.

Mine was the Monarchy, where I’m not really supportive but can’t think of anything better.

Conservatives usually don’t think of better things.

Well that’s because somethings can’t be improved upon.

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:19 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:05 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:03 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:47 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm
I don't want sponsors names on jerseys.

At least not Test jerseys.

Mine was the Monarchy, where I’m not really supportive but can’t think of anything better.

Conservatives usually don’t think of better things.

Well that’s because somethings can’t be improved upon.

Everything can be improved upon.

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:47 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:01 pm

towny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:13 pm I bet you didn't think the internet was going to have a massive impact I bet you derided those that said it was going to change everything. I bet you didn't want rugby to go pro. I bet you didn't want sponsors names on jerseys. I bet you were against gay marriage and I bet you support the monarchy.

I don't want sponsors names on jerseys.

At least not Test jerseys.

Mine was the Monarchy, where I’m not really supportive but can’t think of anything better.

shanky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:01 pm Highly interesting (but slightly long) video from legendary car youtuber, Harry

It’s about the practical industrial applications of hydrogen. It’s not about textbook reasons why hydrogen is less efficient than anything else, so the battery-nazis can just chill and enjoy it

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

Gwenno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:02 pm I have read that hydrogen is being considered as a way of storing surplus green energy, rather than fuel cell cars?

Morgan14 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:45 pm

shanky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:01 pm Highly interesting (but slightly long) video from legendary car youtuber, Harry

It’s about the practical industrial applications of hydrogen. It’s not about textbook reasons why hydrogen is less efficient than anything else, so the battery-nazis can just chill and enjoy it

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

I read an interesting article recently talking about a major issue with using Hydrogen is surprisingly it's widespread adoption would be terrible for the ozone layer. Given it is so light, there will be a lot of escaped gas, and that it will rise, and displace the protective ozone (not destroy, but displace) in the atmosphere in the polar regions in particular (can't rmemeber exactly why), widening the ozone hole(s) there. I don't know if that's enough to discredit it, given the other benefits, but thought it was interesting / a bit sobering.

guy smiley wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:51 pm Thanks for posting that Shanky...

I've seen a few of Harry's videos before, he has a nice style that suits his format.

To summarise...

Lord Bowman, owner of JCB industrial machines was challenged by his son (who owns a bus company that will switch to hydrogen fuel technology) over the possibility of running H2 as a fuel in a combustion engine.

That's very different, of course, to fuel cell tech.

In short order, JCB have come up with a working engine, based on their existing 4l 4 cyl diesel unit. Main changes are to the top end, the cylinder head, to accommodate ignition combustion.

They say H2 delivers 3 times the energy of diesel per volume with the same power and torque characteristics from the engine.

They run real time monitoring of their machines for their clients and service division (as most heavy industrial companies do) and what they've taken from that data is revealing a side to engine use we don't tend to consider as private users.

Lighter earthmoving equipment tends to see around 4-5 hours use per work day and could be electrified based on that workload. Likewise private cars which see, on average, about 300 hours of use per year.

Heavier equipment sees more use and requires more charge capacity, essentially making it impractical. I think Farva has canvassed that issue a number of times already. There is also the cost factor, or as Lord Bowman refers to as the 'inflationary value'... the sheer cost of batteries making it a prohibitive option for many uses, including private cars. He quoted a Vauxhall Astra at about 20K costing closer to 29K as an EV.

What it boils down to is that they've come up with a H2 burning engine suitable for heavy use with no downside, existing technical expertise and manufacturing infrastructure already in place that is pretty much ready to go and needs a supply side infrastructure set up to complete its readiness. The same tech could be applied to private vehicles although a lot of that application could be handled by EV tech...

and one quote I particularly liked from him was that in the face of the cheating expose of VW with its emissions figures, many politicians around the western world were perhaps, mesmerised by Musk.

f**king excellent work all round. I think that's a genuinely exciting solution and it's ready to go.

guy smiley wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:40 pm Yes... it is.

We're clever people. We'll find a way.

I mean... you can 'refine' H2 pretty much anywhere you need it, right?

dinsdale wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:34 pm

guy smiley wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:51 pm Thanks for posting that Shanky...

I've seen a few of Harry's videos before, he has a nice style that suits his format.

To summarise...

Lord Bowman, owner of JCB industrial machines was challenged by his son (who owns a bus company that will switch to hydrogen fuel technology) over the possibility of running H2 as a fuel in a combustion engine.

That's very different, of course, to fuel cell tech.

In short order, JCB have come up with a working engine, based on their existing 4l 4 cyl diesel unit. Main changes are to the top end, the cylinder head, to accommodate ignition combustion.

They say H2 delivers 3 times the energy of diesel per volume with the same power and torque characteristics from the engine.

They run real time monitoring of their machines for their clients and service division (as most heavy industrial companies do) and what they've taken from that data is revealing a side to engine use we don't tend to consider as private users.

Lighter earthmoving equipment tends to see around 4-5 hours use per work day and could be electrified based on that workload. Likewise private cars which see, on average, about 300 hours of use per year.

Heavier equipment sees more use and requires more charge capacity, essentially making it impractical. I think Farva has canvassed that issue a number of times already. There is also the cost factor, or as Lord Bowman refers to as the 'inflationary value'... the sheer cost of batteries making it a prohibitive option for many uses, including private cars. He quoted a Vauxhall Astra at about 20K costing closer to 29K as an EV.

What it boils down to is that they've come up with a H2 burning engine suitable for heavy use with no downside, existing technical expertise and manufacturing infrastructure already in place that is pretty much ready to go and needs a supply side infrastructure set up to complete its readiness. The same tech could be applied to private vehicles although a lot of that application could be handled by EV tech...

and one quote I particularly liked from him was that in the face of the cheating expose of VW with its emissions figures, many politicians around the western world were perhaps, mesmerised by Musk.

f**king excellent work all round. I think that's a genuinely exciting solution and it's ready to go.

Important point. Hydrogen's energy density by weight is 3x diesel but but the energy density by volume is very poor which makes storage a challenge.

In order to store h2 you need high pressure tanks. Type 4 H2 tanks are up to 10000psi. They are heavy & expensive and still don't store that much fuel - under 10% that of diesel.

This is a big limiting factor.

Morgan14 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:45 pm

shanky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:01 pm Highly interesting (but slightly long) video from legendary car youtuber, Harry

It’s about the practical industrial applications of hydrogen. It’s not about textbook reasons why hydrogen is less efficient than anything else, so the battery-nazis can just chill and enjoy it

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

I read an interesting article recently talking about a major issue with using Hydrogen is surprisingly it's widespread adoption would be terrible for the ozone layer. Given it is so light, there will be a lot of escaped gas, and that it will rise, and displace the protective ozone (not destroy, but displace) in the atmosphere in the polar regions in particular (can't rmemeber exactly why), widening the ozone hole(s) there. I don't know if that's enough to discredit it, given the other benefits, but thought it was interesting / a bit sobering.

pigaaaa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:12 am

Morgan14 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:45 pm

shanky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:01 pm Highly interesting (but slightly long) video from legendary car youtuber, Harry

It’s about the practical industrial applications of hydrogen. It’s not about textbook reasons why hydrogen is less efficient than anything else, so the battery-nazis can just chill and enjoy it

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

I read an interesting article recently talking about a major issue with using Hydrogen is surprisingly it's widespread adoption would be terrible for the ozone layer. Given it is so light, there will be a lot of escaped gas, and that it will rise, and displace the protective ozone (not destroy, but displace) in the atmosphere in the polar regions in particular (can't rmemeber exactly why), widening the ozone hole(s) there. I don't know if that's enough to discredit it, given the other benefits, but thought it was interesting / a bit sobering.

I admit that’s the first time I hear this, so I’m willing to dig deeper. But on the face of it it looks like one of the scare stories. For at least several reasons:
1. Hydrogen is light and small indeed which makes storage a challenge - this makes storage also expensive. But once you pay the extra cost there are no leaks. Hydrogen doesn’t leak from the tanks it’s stored in. We have H2 pipelines in operation for decades now and the leakage rates are well below 0.1%. I struggle to see why we would suddenly see huge h2 leaks.
2. H2 is the lightest element. It’s 24 times lighter than ozone. I struggle to see how it could displace it. My understanding always was that h2 is so light it would just escape the atmosphere altogether (which is also why there is none of it in the atmosphere in the first place) - similar to helium. I’m eager to hear the reasoning behind this.
3. The chlorine industry is producing thousands of tonnes of hydrogen as byproduct. In plenty of cases it’s just vent it to the atmosphere. Someone should tell them this

Leinsterman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:55 pm Petrol is more dangerous than hydrogen

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:07 am

Leinsterman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:55 pm Petrol is more dangerous than hydrogen

If you breath in the fumes. But in the case of an accident, vandalism hydrogen ignites far more easily. Likewise as hydrogen is odorless and colorless it can be more difficult to detect to prevent potential dangers. It's a case of it being safer in controlled or ideal conditions, but it has more easy danger implications when things go wrong. Especially in the real world environments and over time when being used by the ordinary Jo. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

pigaaaa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:01 pm

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:07 am

Leinsterman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:55 pm Petrol is more dangerous than hydrogen

If you breath in the fumes. But in the case of an accident, vandalism hydrogen ignites far more easily. Likewise as hydrogen is odorless and colorless it can be more difficult to detect to prevent potential dangers. It's a case of it being safer in controlled or ideal conditions, but it has more easy danger implications when things go wrong. Especially in the real world environments and over time when being used by the ordinary Jo. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

Sorry but that is way off. Its dangerous. Yes - as are all other fuels.
Methane is also colorless and odorless, yet its used for heating and cooking without much fuss - we just add an odorant to it. Same can be done with hydrogen.

pigaaaa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:12 am

Morgan14 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:45 pm

shanky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:01 pm Highly interesting (but slightly long) video from legendary car youtuber, Harry

It’s about the practical industrial applications of hydrogen. It’s not about textbook reasons why hydrogen is less efficient than anything else, so the battery-nazis can just chill and enjoy it

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

I read an interesting article recently talking about a major issue with using Hydrogen is surprisingly it's widespread adoption would be terrible for the ozone layer. Given it is so light, there will be a lot of escaped gas, and that it will rise, and displace the protective ozone (not destroy, but displace) in the atmosphere in the polar regions in particular (can't rmemeber exactly why), widening the ozone hole(s) there. I don't know if that's enough to discredit it, given the other benefits, but thought it was interesting / a bit sobering.

I admit that’s the first time I hear this, so I’m willing to dig deeper. But on the face of it it looks like one of the scare stories. For at least several reasons:
1. Hydrogen is light and small indeed which makes storage a challenge - this makes storage also expensive. But once you pay the extra cost there are no leaks. Hydrogen doesn’t leak from the tanks it’s stored in. We have H2 pipelines in operation for decades now and the leakage rates are well below 0.1%. I struggle to see why we would suddenly see huge h2 leaks.
2. H2 is the lightest element. It’s 24 times lighter than ozone. I struggle to see how it could displace it. My understanding always was that h2 is so light it would just escape the atmosphere altogether (which is also why there is none of it in the atmosphere in the first place) - similar to helium. I’m eager to hear the reasoning behind this.
3. The chlorine industry is producing thousands of tonnes of hydrogen as byproduct. In plenty of cases it’s just vent it to the atmosphere. Someone should tell them this

Ball, P. Hydrogen fuel could widen ozone hole. Nature (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/news030609-14

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:03 pm

pigaaaa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:01 pm

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:07 am

Leinsterman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:55 pm Petrol is more dangerous than hydrogen

If you breath in the fumes. But in the case of an accident, vandalism hydrogen ignites far more easily. Likewise as hydrogen is odorless and colorless it can be more difficult to detect to prevent potential dangers. It's a case of it being safer in controlled or ideal conditions, but it has more easy danger implications when things go wrong. Especially in the real world environments and over time when being used by the ordinary Jo. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

Sorry but that is way off. Its dangerous. Yes - as are all other fuels.
Methane is also colorless and odorless, yet its used for heating and cooking without much fuss - we just add an odorant to it. Same can be done with hydrogen.

Of course, but my point was hydrogen was easier to ignite. I'm also disappointed my Blazing Saddles reference was overlooked

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:36 pm

pigaaaa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:12 am

Morgan14 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:45 pm

shanky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:01 pm Highly interesting (but slightly long) video from legendary car youtuber, Harry

It’s about the practical industrial applications of hydrogen. It’s not about textbook reasons why hydrogen is less efficient than anything else, so the battery-nazis can just chill and enjoy it

https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

I read an interesting article recently talking about a major issue with using Hydrogen is surprisingly it's widespread adoption would be terrible for the ozone layer. Given it is so light, there will be a lot of escaped gas, and that it will rise, and displace the protective ozone (not destroy, but displace) in the atmosphere in the polar regions in particular (can't rmemeber exactly why), widening the ozone hole(s) there. I don't know if that's enough to discredit it, given the other benefits, but thought it was interesting / a bit sobering.

I admit that’s the first time I hear this, so I’m willing to dig deeper. But on the face of it it looks like one of the scare stories. For at least several reasons:
1. Hydrogen is light and small indeed which makes storage a challenge - this makes storage also expensive. But once you pay the extra cost there are no leaks. Hydrogen doesn’t leak from the tanks it’s stored in. We have H2 pipelines in operation for decades now and the leakage rates are well below 0.1%. I struggle to see why we would suddenly see huge h2 leaks.
2. H2 is the lightest element. It’s 24 times lighter than ozone. I struggle to see how it could displace it. My understanding always was that h2 is so light it would just escape the atmosphere altogether (which is also why there is none of it in the atmosphere in the first place) - similar to helium. I’m eager to hear the reasoning behind this.
3. The chlorine industry is producing thousands of tonnes of hydrogen as byproduct. In plenty of cases it’s just vent it to the atmosphere. Someone should tell them this

I think the idea is that it will produce water in the stratosphere that will then accumulate at the poles.

Edit:

Ball, P. Hydrogen fuel could widen ozone hole. Nature (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/news030609-14

Whether this will actually happen greatly depends on how quickly a hydrogen economy is introduced. The use of ozone-depleting CFC propellants and refrigerants has been largely discontinued in most developed countries, and their concentrations in the atmosphere are declining

Although its environmental benefits would still far outweigh any drawbacks.

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:14 pm Hydrogen jumbo jets?

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:29 pm Great video, and a great idea. I had already wondered about the feasibility of powering large engines with batteries, and whether there would be dispensation for farm vehicles lorries diggers etc. This is a much better solution, and perhaps wouldn’t need a massive change in infrastructure for hydrogen delivery that widespread private car ownership would need, eg farms could have their own hydrogen supply on site in the way they have their own diesel supply now. As for ozone layer destruction, if all works well most of the hydrogen will only return to the environment when it has recombined with oxygen to make water, won’t it?

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:21 pm

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:14 pm Hydrogen jumbo jets?

More likely PtL using captured CO2 and green H2.

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:22 pm

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:21 pm

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:14 pm Hydrogen jumbo jets?

More likely PtL using captured CO2 and green H2.

I’ll bite.PtL?

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:33 pm

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:22 pm

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:21 pm

Gwenno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:14 pm Hydrogen jumbo jets?

More likely PtL using captured CO2 and green H2.

I’ll bite.PtL?

Recently adopted (in May I think) by the EU as kerosene replacement designed to cut domestic CO2 production in half by 2030. Power to Liquid.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/e ... quids.html

Leinsterman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:52 pm

Gwenno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:02 pm I have read that hydrogen is being considered as a way of storing surplus green energy, rather than fuel cell cars?

Yes using surplus green energy, e.g. wind farms that are being constrained off the grid, to generate hydrogen that can be used to power fuel cell cars is a concept already being trialled in Belfast by the bus operator to run fuel cell buses.

towny wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:35 am Look at Germany right now.
Do we really need more water?

merlin the happy pig wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 5:47 am

Leinsterman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:52 pm

Gwenno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:02 pm I have read that hydrogen is being considered as a way of storing surplus green energy, rather than fuel cell cars?

Yes using surplus green energy, e.g. wind farms that are being constrained off the grid, to generate hydrogen that can be used to power fuel cell cars is a concept already being trialled in Belfast by the bus operator to run fuel cell buses.

Hydrogen is an energy storage medium rather than an energy source which is a monumentally important distinction.

Hydrogen has to be produced, and its production and subsequent use are both hugely inefficient. If you 1 joule of solar energy, use it to charge a battery then to drive the wheels of a vehicle you get about 70 to 80 % of that energy tranformed into kinetic energy.
If you do the same with electrolysis to create then consume hydrogen you get about 30%.

Give that, what would be a better way to utilize the excess solarge energy, make h2 or pump water back uphill for later electricity generation. The latter is a much more effective use of the power give stored hydro wastes as little as 10% of the energy.

I think there are definitely uses for hydrogen in transport especially long haul aircraft, shipping and long haul trucking where the power density of batteries isn't up to the task.

For urban buses, cars, and short haul trucks there is no compelling case for hydrogen, as there are more efficient ways to store excess intermittent generation from renewables.