Water is not a constraint in the production of hydrogen.

Don't see what you are telling us here, Terry. Water must be one of the most abundant materials on earth, so no problem there. One problem may be its purity, which could affect any electrolysis method. Plus the fact that in a sense the hydrogen is a battery, as when the H2 is 'burnt' back to water, the energy used in electrolysis is recovered.

Losses take place in both processes, so overall some energy is lost. The chief advantage is that it is non-polluting - on paper.

Edited by Andrew-T on 12/03/2023 at 09:35

Some posters seem to think water is a constraint - I don't.

Hydrogen is non-polluting if it uses green energy for electrolysis.

EVs are very efficient in storing and using electricity. Adding hydrogen into the process (electrolysis, compression, fuel cell) all create losses estimated at 50-70%.

Put simply - if a power station outputs 100kwh, the EV will make use of ~80 of them. The hydrogen option will make use of ~30. It may appear superficially "green" but it would mean 2-3 times the number of wind turbines, and fields full of PVs t generate the electricity.

You cant say millions of batteries in cars are green, get some set on fire or get damaged and you have pollution worse than now

Ill stick to wind turbines and pvs as they are safer

As we move to EVs, the amount of oil being refined will decrease and that will save a lot of energy that could be used instead to charge EVs.

Very much doubt it will make any difference if kwh goes up on a charger, specially as they talk of charge rates high enough to charge a car in 3 mins flat and faster which some new tech batteries are claimed to be able to do and made of recycled plastics to cut mining out alrogether which is Musks aim

As we move to EVs, the amount of oil being refined will decrease and that will save a lot of energy that could be used instead to charge EVs.

Large-scale manufacturing of big batteries will consume a lot of energy and cause enormous quarrying operations wherever the raw minerals come from. Not very green - and most users in the First World probably don't consider which parts of the Third World are dug up.

Windpower is often is surplus due to high winds. The electricity generated is surplus as the cables form Scotland where it is generated to England - where it is used - cannot take teh current. Due to be updated in the next 25 years.

Hydrogen production could be used to store energy. But there are no gas pipeline connections and they will cost £billions. No plans to install them.

So neither does or will work effectively. Far sighted policy planning in the UK?

Not many people consider the above facts and write hopeful rubbish. If these issues are not solved, never going to work.

Not in my lifetime job.

How many Hydrogen filling stations are there in the UK today? 15.

How many EV charging stations are there in the UK ? 16,900 as of 2020 so that's an under estimate.

And people say that the EV charging infrastructure just isn't there. 15 yeah that's some infrastructure. Clearly Hydrogen is the fuel of perhaps as soon as 2275, but today? Not a hope.

Edited by Ethan Edwards on 12/03/2023 at 22:34

There is no need to build hydrogen pipelines if surplus generation is used for electrolysis. It would make far more sense to store the hydrogen by the wind farm and generate electricity on site when wind speeds are low, and the electricity distribution network operating below capacity.

where there's a will, Harrys Farm tells how the engine was modified and the machines are topped up with a tank thats at higher pressure than the Machine is, the engine runs on lower temp to stop pinking and oil is as new after 500 hours running, which you wouldn`t get on a diesel

once Hydrogen gas comes down in price they are expected to be cheaper to run and working on greener ways to produce the Hydrogen which appears not to be too long

IMO it is looking good for an ICE to be powered by Hydrogen, if JCB can do it anyone can, though there isn`t the will to do it, they would rather have power cuts! due to volume of motors on charge at any one time. then I suppose if Companies only see £ signs, common sense flies out the window

The greenhouse gas payback on the manufacture of wind turbines is variously estimated at 4-9 months. This does not include site and construction impacts - but as wind turbines have an operating life in excess of 25 years, they make great environmental sense.

There is no need to build hydrogen pipelines if surplus generation is used for electrolysis. It would make far more sense to store the hydrogen by the wind farm and generate electricity on site when wind speeds are low, and the electricity distribution network operating below capacity.

Unfortunately that means few of them in England, with most in Scotland near the sea (an eyesore on many beautiful areas in my view), where most turbines are suited for, at least as wind is concerned. It still means huge, power-hungry and expensive (highly compressed) hydrogen storage, which we don't have and would take decades to build.

Note that wind turbines are quite maintenance-hungry, not helped by their remote location (especially if at sea) and difficulty if replacement parts are needed to be fitted.

Unfortunately that means few of them in England, with most in Scotland near the sea (an eyesore on many beautiful areas in my view), where most turbines are suited for, at least as wind is concerned.

England has not lacked wind turbine investment thus far - see map

Wind_capacity_map_DUKES_2022.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

That doesn't mean they are suitable, just that subsidies allowed them to be built. There's some in my area of East Anglia, not exactly famed for its windy weather.

Turbines need an average annual wind speed of at least 7 m/sec (14 knots). Map below from the Met Office shows average wind speeds across the UK - most of the west coast from Cornwall to John O'Groats is suitable. Offshore wind are higher than onshore.

Tell that to the locals, who mostly hate them because of the eyesore (and sometimes noise for those living close by). What's the betting that most advocates of wind turbines don't live within sight of one?

Where are the windiest parts of the UK? - Met Office

You are right about maintenance costs being much higher offshore - but the incidence of storms around Scotland is much higher than England, almost certainly making maintenance more problematic.

It is also worth noting that it can be too windy for turbine operations - beyond a certain design level they need to shut down to avoid damage.

Indeed - One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is the variability of the conditions for generation, with wind being worse because it can destory the turbine as we've seen on the news on occasion. I wouldn't want to be local nearby in that case!

If tidal power (which is far more constant / predictable) can be safely harnessed without having a significant detrimental impact on the environment, then I think that's the way forward, given how blessed the UK is in that department, even without rivers.

I just wish that those pushing all these technologies were more open and honest about their prospects, rather than snake oil salesmen trying to get as much taxpayer subsidy and grants for tech they know will either never work, won't get anywhere near the claimed potential or won't break even for ages despite claims to the contrary.

<< Tell that to the locals, who mostly hate them because of the eyesore (and sometimes noise for those living close by). What's the betting that most advocates of wind turbines don't live within sight of one? >>

Several years ago a 'farm' of about 18 turbines was proposed for the Mersey marshes near here, and consultation meetings were held to get public views. Not surprisingly most of those who attended wanted to object, one objection being the alleged noise nuisance, another the loss of visual amenity. In fact it was a nimby reaction, pure and simple.

The patch of ground which now contains the turbines (3 or 4 of which I can watch from the kitchen window) also has the M56 motorway, a power line and chemical plants at both ends, so the visual amenity is rather limited; and for most of the day any turbine noise is swamped by traffic on the M56.

A more pertinent objection might have been the hazard of the flight path into Liverpool airport. Personally I don't mind the turbines, though they are rather on the large side, beyond human scale, unlike traditional windmills.

It's easy saying 'nimby' when its not a few hundred metres away affecting you personally. Wait until some 'green' firm wants one that near your house, then I'd like to see what you actually do.

Can you give one single instance of a turbine being erected "near a house"? The planning rules would not allow this. A turbine destroying itself in high winds is not going to pose a threat to anyone unless they are very unlucky and happen to be directly under it when it fails.

No but I did see a few in an industrial estate somewhere on the coast near Carlisle. You could actually park next to it in the carpark. It was a big one too. I didn't hear much noise from it at all.

<< Tell that to the locals, who mostly hate them because of the eyesore (and sometimes noise for those living close by). What's the betting that most advocates of wind turbines don't live within sight of one? >>

Several years ago a 'farm' of about 18 turbines was proposed for the Mersey marshes near here, and consultation meetings were held to get public views. Not surprisingly most of those who attended wanted to object, one objection being the alleged noise nuisance, another the loss of visual amenity. In fact it was a nimby reaction, pure and simple.

The patch of ground which now contains the turbines (3 or 4 of which I can watch from the kitchen window) also has the M56 motorway, a power line and chemical plants at both ends, so the visual amenity is rather limited; and for most of the day any turbine noise is swamped by traffic on the M56.

A more pertinent objection might have been the hazard of the flight path into Liverpool airport. Personally I don't mind the turbines, though they are rather on the large side, beyond human scale, unlike traditional windmills.

It's easy saying 'nimby' when its not a few hundred metres away affecting you personally. Wait until some 'green' firm wants one that near your house, then I'd like to see what you actually do.

He does live near the turbines, doesn't he, if he can see them from the window?

True, and thanks for that correction. Still, I can see some wind turbines southeast of Cambridge from best part of 10 miles away - that doesn't mean that's on my doorstep. And as I said before, many turbine's locations are in very picturesque areas (or SSSIs), which by their nature were previously unspoilt and quiet, not in some industrial area next to a motorway.

Even so, I'd still bet that others living in the area, especially those living closer to the turbines, would not have appreciated even more despoilment, which in totality might mean they either cannot sell their homes in the future or have to seriously drop the price.

Perhaps Andrew either didn't consider that or it doesn't matter to him personally as his circumstances are different to other residents in the area.

<< He does live near the turbines, doesn't he, if he can see them from the window? >>

About three-quarters of a mile from the nearest one, at a guess. I attended one of the consultation meetings. One person played what was claimed to be a recording of the noise close to a working turbine, much closer than anyone would be living when they were built, as they were north of the M'way where no-one actually lives. And, as I said, when the inspectors paid their site visit it was clear that any turbine noise was drowned by the traffic anyway.

The other main objections seemed to be basically that the view from the nearby hill would be altered detrimentally - motorway, chemical plants, row of pylons, .... It seemed to me the best place to put turbines if they had to go somewhere; the output could be used where it was created, without more power lines.

Edited by Andrew-T on 14/03/2023 at 23:15

<< Tell that to the locals, who mostly hate them because of the eyesore (and sometimes noise for those living close by). What's the betting that most advocates of wind turbines don't live within sight of one? >>

Several years ago a 'farm' of about 18 turbines was proposed for the Mersey marshes near here, and consultation meetings were held to get public views. Not surprisingly most of those who attended wanted to object, one objection being the alleged noise nuisance, another the loss of visual amenity. In fact it was a nimby reaction, pure and simple.

The patch of ground which now contains the turbines (3 or 4 of which I can watch from the kitchen window) also has the M56 motorway, a power line and chemical plants at both ends, so the visual amenity is rather limited; and for most of the day any turbine noise is swamped by traffic on the M56.

A more pertinent objection might have been the hazard of the flight path into Liverpool airport. Personally I don't mind the turbines, though they are rather on the large side, beyond human scale, unlike traditional windmills.

It's easy saying 'nimby' when its not a few hundred metres away affecting you personally. Wait until some 'green' firm wants one that near your house, then I'd like to see what you actually do.

He does say he can see the turbines from his house - seems close enough that he could complain should he wish to do so. And if they are near a chemical works and M56 then it only adds to the eyesore already there. Actually drove past there today - I'd be happy living near one - I enjoy watching them

So what are you waiting for? Put that nice house up for sale and move next door to it!