Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot upstairs
with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
switch off the entire 20 min trip.

This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them and
I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still worth
a few quid.

On 23/07/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
> today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot upstairs
> with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
> switch off the entire 20 min trip.
>
> This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
> generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them and
> I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still worth
> a few quid.
>

Are they actually worth anything? Who else would want them?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/07/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
>> today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot upstairs
>> with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
>> switch off the entire 20 min trip.
>>
>> This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
>> generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them and
>> I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still worth
>> a few quid.
>>
>
> Are they actually worth anything? Who else would want them?

Yes, I think that's the problem. No-one else ordered any, so they're
unlikely to be of much interest to other operators. They'd be worth little
more than scrap value.

I wonder if WrightBus could give them a drive train upgrade so thr hybrid
tech actually works?

On 23/07/2023 21:06, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
>>> today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot upstairs
>>> with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
>>> switch off the entire 20 min trip.
>>>
>>> This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
>>> generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them and
>>> I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still worth
>>> a few quid.
>>>
>>
>> Are they actually worth anything? Who else would want them?
>
> Yes, I think that's the problem. No-one else ordered any, so they're
> unlikely to be of much interest to other operators. They'd be worth little
> more than scrap value.
>
> I wonder if WrightBus could give them a drive train upgrade so thr hybrid
> tech actually works?

Again, would it actually be worth the expense,the whole concept was
basically flawed from the start.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 07:49:56 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 23/07/2023 21:06, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
>>>> today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot
>upstairs
>>>> with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
>
>>>> switch off the entire 20 min trip.
>>>>
>>>> This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
>>>> generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them
>and
>>>> I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still
>worth
>>>> a few quid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are they actually worth anything? Who else would want them?
>>
>> Yes, I think that's the problem. No-one else ordered any, so they're
>> unlikely to be of much interest to other operators. They'd be worth little
>> more than scrap value.
>>
>> I wonder if WrightBus could give them a drive train upgrade so thr hybrid
>> tech actually works?
>
>Again, would it actually be worth the expense,the whole concept was
>basically flawed from the start.

I think the idea was ok, it was the implementation that was rubbish. IIRC
at the time a hybrid bus was a pretty novel concept (in the UK at least) and
perhaps they didn't get the correct engineers in to design it. Whatever the
reason it simply doesn't work and provides a fairly miserable passenger
experience.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:06:49 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
>>> today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot
>upstairs
>>> with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
>>> switch off the entire 20 min trip.
>>>
>>> This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
>>> generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them and
>
>>> I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still worth
>
>>> a few quid.
>>>
>>
>> Are they actually worth anything? Who else would want them?
>
>Yes, I think that's the problem. No-one else ordered any, so they're
>unlikely to be of much interest to other operators. They'd be worth little
>more than scrap value.
>
>I wonder if WrightBus could give them a drive train upgrade so thr hybrid
>tech actually works?

Wrightbus going bust a few years has ago probably put paid to that. Any long
term warranties and support contracts would be void and I guess its up to
the new owners if they wish to honour them.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:06:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2023 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Wanted to take the family on a scenic(ish) ride on the number 9 in london
>>>> today. Sadly a new routemaster turned up and true to form it was hot
>> upstairs
>>>> with the ventilators barely worked but worse than that the generator didn't
>>>> switch off the entire 20 min trip.
>>>>
>>>> This is probably the 4th time I've been on one of these buses where the
>>>> generator never went off. There's clearly some kind of problem with them and
>>
>>>> I can't help thinking its time TfL got rid of them while they're still worth
>>
>>>> a few quid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are they actually worth anything? Who else would want them?
>>
>> Yes, I think that's the problem. No-one else ordered any, so they're
>> unlikely to be of much interest to other operators. They'd be worth little
>> more than scrap value.
>>
>> I wonder if WrightBus could give them a drive train upgrade so thr hybrid
>> tech actually works?
>
> Wrightbus going bust a few years has ago probably put paid to that. Any long
> term warranties and support contracts would be void and I guess its up to
> the new owners if they wish to honour them.

I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
are promoting)?

London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
a little more to extend their lives by a few years.

In uk.transport.london Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
> are promoting)?
>
> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.

An EV conversion has been done and is/has been on trial with Metroline:
https://equipmake.co.uk/equipmake-showcases-sector-leading-repower-technology-with-fully-electric-new-routemaster-bus/

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In uk.transport.london Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
>> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
>> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
>> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
>> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
>> are promoting)?
>>
>> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
>> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.
>
> An EV conversion has been done and is/has been on trial with Metroline:
> https://equipmake.co.uk/equipmake-showcases-sector-leading-repower-technology-with-fully-electric-new-routemaster-bus/
>

Excellent — I hadn't heard about that.

On 24/07/2023 10:27, Theo wrote:
> In uk.transport.london Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
>> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
>> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
>> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
>> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
>> are promoting)?
>>
>> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
>> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.
>
> An EV conversion has been done and is/has been on trial with Metroline:
> https://equipmake.co.uk/equipmake-showcases-sector-leading-repower-technology-with-fully-electric-new-routemaster-bus/
>
> Theo

That seems to be the future for the fleet.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 24 Jul 2023 10:27:18 +0100 (BST)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In uk.transport.london Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
>> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
>> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
>> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
>> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
>> are promoting)?
>>
>> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
>> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.
>
>An EV conversion has been done and is/has been on trial with Metroline:
>https://equipmake.co.uk/equipmake-showcases-sector-leading-repower-technology-w
>ith-fully-electric-new-routemaster-bus/

Lets hope its successful, but I always get a bit twitchy when Neverheardofem Ltd
takes on some big project. Small companies investing big have a habit of going
bust fast. See Vivarail.

On 24/07/2023 16:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2023 10:27:18 +0100 (BST)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In uk.transport.london Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
>>> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
>>> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
>>> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
>>> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
>>> are promoting)?
>>>
>>> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
>>> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.
>>
>> An EV conversion has been done and is/has been on trial with Metroline:
>> https://equipmake.co.uk/equipmake-showcases-sector-leading-repower-technology-w
>> ith-fully-electric-new-routemaster-bus/
>
> Lets hope its successful, but I always get a bit twitchy when Neverheardofem Ltd
> takes on some big project. Small companies investing big have a habit of going
> bust fast. See Vivarail.
>

They claim to have been around for 20 years, so not some on-the-make
start-up. Apparently a motor-sport spin-off.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:18:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
> are promoting)?

Hydrogen? I looked at hydrogen in the very early 70s.
Yes, it is the cleanest fuel for internal combustion engines. But
where do you get hydrogen from?

You can extract it from petroleum, meaning what about
the pollution from that?

You can get it from the electrolisis of water. but if you
have all that electricity, it is more efficient to charge
batteries.

Then it can be extracted from coal gas which is about 50%
hydrogen. That means retorting coal, not a nice process.

> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.

There no doubt with improved hybrid knowhow be an upgrade
making it worthwhile

--
The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to
fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC), Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:18:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
>> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
>> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
>> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
>> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
>> are promoting)?
>
> Hydrogen? I looked at hydrogen in the very early 70s.
>Yes, it is the cleanest fuel for internal combustion engines. But
>where do you get hydrogen from?

Mostly, it's planned to use it in fuel cells, not burn it. But JCB is keen on using it as an ICE fuel:
https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/campaigns/hydrogen

Some of its machines are used 20 hours a day, so the fast refuelling is essential.

>
> You can extract it from petroleum, meaning what about
>the pollution from that?
>
> You can get it from the electrolisis of water. but if you
>have all that electricity, it is more efficient to charge
>batteries.

Yes, but it's much faster to refuel with hydrogen than to recharge batteries. That's why it's being used for heavy,
longer range vehicles (like HGVs, trains and construction machinery).

>
> Then it can be extracted from coal gas which is about 50%
>hydrogen. That means retorting coal, not a nice process.

You've omitted the most promising source:
https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

>
>> London has invested so much in that fleet that it might be worth investing
>> a little more to extend their lives by a few years.
>
> There no doubt with improved hybrid knowhow be an upgrade
>making it worthwhile

Looks like TfL hopes to move straight to batteries. But the company that originally built those buses is more interested
in hydrogen. It quotes an eight minute time to refuel for a 280 mile range in a double-decker, rather than an overnight
battery charge.

https://wrightbus.com/en-gb/hydrogen-bus-streetdeck-hydrolinerFCEV

Recliner wrote:

> You've omitted the most promising source:
> https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

"Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"

Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Recliner wrote:
>
>> You've omitted the most promising source:
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
>
>"Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
>
>Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."

I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:09:30 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC), Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:18:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not suggesting Wrightbus would do it for free. But, for example,
>>> battery technology has moved on a lot in the 13 years since these buses
>>> were designed, so it should be possible to fit a higher capacity, more
>>> reliable battery in the same space. A better, cleaner diesel engine might
>>> also be available. Or could hydrogen be an option (something the new owners
>>> are promoting)?
>>
>> Hydrogen? I looked at hydrogen in the very early 70s.
>>Yes, it is the cleanest fuel for internal combustion engines. But
>>where do you get hydrogen from?
>
>Mostly, it's planned to use it in fuel cells, not burn it. But JCB is keen on
>using it as an ICE fuel:
>https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/campaigns/hydrogen
>
>Some of its machines are used 20 hours a day, so the fast refuelling is
>essential.

Or do as is done in some quarries and mines - plug the machines directly into
an electrical supply dragging a cable around with it. Not suitable for
every building site obv, but would probably cover a fair percentage of them.

>Looks like TfL hopes to move straight to batteries. But the company that
>originally built those buses is more interested
>in hydrogen. It quotes an eight minute time to refuel for a 280 mile range in
>a double-decker, rather than an overnight
>battery charge.

Unless its sourced from renewable energy (wasting about 80% of it in the
process compared to charging a battery) its just greenwash.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:55:11 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>>Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> You've omitted the most promising source:
>>>
>https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-sto
>res-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
>>
>>"Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
>>
>>Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."
>
>I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.

The amount of gas produced by fracking worldwide is statistical noise compared
to wells.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:55:11 +0100
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> You've omitted the most promising source:
>>>>
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-sto
>> res-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
>>>
>>> "Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
>>>
>>> Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."
>>
>> I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.
>
> The amount of gas produced by fracking worldwide is statistical noise compared
> to wells.

It *all* comes from wells. But in 2018 EIA estimated that fracking
accounted for two-thirds of total US natural gas production and about half
of US crude oil production. It's made the US the world's largest oil
producer. That happened remarkably quickly.

Do you have any more of your amusing made-up pearls of wisdom to share with
us?

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:20:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:55:11 +0100
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You've omitted the most promising source:
>>>>>
>>>
>https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-sto
>
>>> res-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
>>>>
>>>> "Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
>>>>
>>>> Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."
>>>
>>> I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.
>>
>> The amount of gas produced by fracking worldwide is statistical noise
>compared
>> to wells.
>
>It *all* comes from wells. But in 2018 EIA estimated that fracking
>accounted for two-thirds of total US natural gas production and about half
>of US crude oil production. It's made the US the world's largest oil
>producer. That happened remarkably quickly.
>
>Do you have any more of your amusing made-up pearls of wisdom to share with
>us?

66% of 25% of world production. Big deal.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:20:21 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:55:11 +0100
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You've omitted the most promising source:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-sto
>>
>>>> res-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.
>>>
>>> The amount of gas produced by fracking worldwide is statistical noise
>> compared
>>> to wells.
>>
>> It *all* comes from wells. But in 2018 EIA estimated that fracking
>> accounted for two-thirds of total US natural gas production and about half
>> of US crude oil production. It's made the US the world's largest oil
>> producer. That happened remarkably quickly.
>>
>> Do you have any more of your amusing made-up pearls of wisdom to share with
>> us?
>
> 66% of 25% of world production. Big deal.

As always, you demonstrate your ignorance.

It's the only country to frack at scale. We chose not to frack here in
crowded Britain, but would be becoming a major oil and gas exporter again
if we'd chosen otherwise.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:33:57 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Do you have any more of your amusing made-up pearls of wisdom to share with
>>> us?
>>
>> 66% of 25% of world production. Big deal.
>
>As always, you demonstrate your ignorance.
>
>It's the only country to frack at scale. We chose not to frack here in
>crowded Britain, but would be becoming a major oil and gas exporter again
>if we'd chosen otherwise.

Thank god we didn't and so avoided the polluted water table and earth tremors
that plague fracking in the US.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
> >Recliner wrote:
> >
> >> You've omitted the most promising source:
> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
> >
> >"Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
> >
> >Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."
>
> I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.

If it's dug out of the ground, unless the replacement process is very rapid,
it's by definition not renewable - and that makes it a fossil fuel, albeit
not a carbon-based one.

A lot of this is the oil and gas industry desperately looking for a way to
stay relevant in the face of an existential threat: eg keeping
refining/transporting/filling infrastructure to fill up hydrogen cars when
instead people can fill up EVs from the existing electricity grid or their
own solar panels.

Hence they tout hydrogen as the future hope... one which is never quite
there yet, but is enough to put off investment in electrification (hello
bionic duckweed).

Like many lies, there's a grain of truth: hydrogen does make sense for
certain applications where electricity doesn't. But as electric
infrastructure and batteries develop, it is likely the range may narrow.

For example for a long time petrol was the only show in town for cordless
garden tools, but now we have battery lawnmowers and chainsaws that are
pretty good - displacing big chunks of the formerly-petrol market. It
doesn't mean petrol is completely gone for good, but the use cases where
petrol is clearly better are being nibbled away.

I expect similar to happen with transportation. At the end of the day
hydrogen, especially in an ICE, is several times less efficient than battery
storage, so it's only the use cases where running costs either don't matter
or wires/battery are a complete non-starter where it might make sense.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:37:50 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> You've omitted the most promising source:
>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
>>>
>>> "Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?"
>>>
>>> Usually the answer to questions like that, turns out to be "No."
>>
>> I'm sure people said that about fracking, too.
>
> If it's dug out of the ground, unless the replacement process is very rapid,
> it's by definition not renewable - and that makes it a fossil fuel, albeit
> not a carbon-based one.

It may indeed be renewable:

'Natural, or white, hydrogen is continuously produced in the earth’s crust,
and scientists are now discovering there’s much more of it stored
underground than previously thought.

It’s a renewable resource that can be captured by simply drilling a well.'

https://sciencebusiness.net/climate-news/news/hydrogen-could-be-taken-straight-ground

> A lot of this is the oil and gas industry desperately looking for a way to
> stay relevant in the face of an existential threat: eg keeping
> refining/transporting/filling infrastructure to fill up hydrogen cars when
> instead people can fill up EVs from the existing electricity grid or their
> own solar panels.

Batteries aren't exactly perfect, either.

>
> Hence they tout hydrogen as the future hope... one which is never quite
> there yet, but is enough to put off investment in electrification (hello
> bionic duckweed).
>
> Like many lies, there's a grain of truth: hydrogen does make sense for
> certain applications where electricity doesn't. But as electric
> infrastructure and batteries develop, it is likely the range may narrow.
>
> For example for a long time petrol was the only show in town for cordless
> garden tools, but now we have battery lawnmowers and chainsaws that are
> pretty good - displacing big chunks of the formerly-petrol market. It
> doesn't mean petrol is completely gone for good, but the use cases where
> petrol is clearly better are being nibbled away.
>
> I expect similar to happen with transportation. At the end of the day
> hydrogen, especially in an ICE, is several times less efficient than battery
> storage, so it's only the use cases where running costs either don't matter
> or wires/battery are a complete non-starter where it might make sense.

Hence the likely applications in long distance coaches and trucks, heavy
construction equipment that is used constantly all day, and perhaps ships.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > If it's dug out of the ground, unless the replacement process is very
> > rapid, it's by definition not renewable - and that makes it a fossil
> > fuel, albeit not a carbon-based one.
>
> It may indeed be renewable:
>
> 'Natural, or white, hydrogen is continuously produced in the earth’s crust,
> and scientists are now discovering there’s much more of it stored
> underground than previously thought.
>
> It’s a renewable resource that can be captured by simply drilling a well.'
>
> https://sciencebusiness.net/climate-news/news/hydrogen-could-be-taken-straight-ground

The devil is in the detail there. Unless there is generation of new
hydrogen in quantity to balance the abstraction, you're tapping a fossil
reserve.

Similar to drilling into aquifers which aren't being replenished at the same
rate water is extracted from them. That is in effect fossil water, because
it took thousands of years to build up and many fewer than thousands of
years to pump out.

Humans are capable of sucking slowly-accumulating natural resources dry at a
prodigious rate, in geological terms.

> > A lot of this is the oil and gas industry desperately looking for a way to
> > stay relevant in the face of an existential threat: eg keeping
> > refining/transporting/filling infrastructure to fill up hydrogen cars when
> > instead people can fill up EVs from the existing electricity grid or their
> > own solar panels.
>
> Batteries aren't exactly perfect, either.

Indeed, but once there are enough of them extant it's a closed loop
lifecycle: reprocess old batteries into new ones. No more mining required,
since the minerals are recycled. Unlike fossil fuel extraction which has an
insatiable desire for new resources.

> > I expect similar to happen with transportation. At the end of the day
> > hydrogen, especially in an ICE, is several times less efficient than battery
> > storage, so it's only the use cases where running costs either don't matter
> > or wires/battery are a complete non-starter where it might make sense.
>
> Hence the likely applications in long distance coaches and trucks, heavy
> construction equipment that is used constantly all day, and perhaps ships.

I think some of those use cases will be covered by batteries that charge
faster than today (likely from a static battery that has been charging while
the machinery is in motion), but I agree it may work for some scenarios like
shipping.

Theo