maxbc wrote:
H2 molecules are so small they tend to leak in the tyniest holes, even evaporate through solid metal.
worse still, embrittling it in the process. If there’s one place you don’t want an embrittled very high pressure tank, it’s in an aircraft! (Hydrogen embrittlement is also why you also don’t use chemical rust treatments on steel aircraft parts).
A good video on Net Zero
maxbc wrote:
which puts the total efficiency at around 1/4
The efficiency is abysmal, but the economy of it is not. This means that if you have surplus energy at times that you otherwise couldn’t use or that got wasted, then storing it as hydrogen instead of in batteries is probably cheaper. It will cost less per kWh. Scaling it up makes less sense due to land area use (and low efficiency), but scaling up batteries makes absolutely no sense whatsoever due to cost. Also, if you use that hydrogen to make heat, it makes perfect sense. This can be done by burning it, or mixing it with natural gas. I think natural gas can be mixed with up to 20-30% hydrogen without any problems for instance.
Can someone with good academic qualifications look at these two papers and say whether it is BS or real?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0836
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
I had not read on the reverse-causality temp-CO2 elsewhere, but this chicken-and-egg approach question does have its merits. If we were not collectively placing such high bets on the opposite premise (ie CO2 causes warming vs warming causes CO2) it would even be funny.
I am a man of faith (Catholic), and I would say few, if any, religions have had higher widespread, faithful and blind following in the past centuries in the Western world as the one about the direct anthropogenic CO2>warming causality. The validity of any religion is best judged when it endures the test of questioning times. I therefore welcome the question on these two papers.
PS: we still drive around on two electric cars at home in order to compensate for our avgas-burning Contisaurus, just in case: I do hate to see coal-burning electricity being wasted at night, regardless of how much global warming it causes.
I would be interested to know if there is more CO2 or potential CO2 in the world today, than there was say 200 years ago.
Or are we just moving it around. For instance, as oil and gas it is stored potential CO2. When we put it in our cars and drive around we are moving it from long term storage to our towns and cities.
The other thing I would like to know is how much CO2 we need to survive.
For instance if we hyperventilate we are told to breath into a bag to increase the CO2 in our respiratory system.
Without CO2 we could not grow plants and the world’s oxygen supply as well as its food supply would be drastically reduced.
And then there is the fact that recently Europe had ansignificant reduction in the supply of fertiliser due to lack of CO2 at the manufacturers.
So is the aim for net Zero a total nonsense.
Sorry folks just the thoughts of a madman as he watches the rain streaming down the windows as one front quickly follows another and stops me flying.🤔🤔🤔
gallois wrote:
For instance if we hyperventilate we are told to breath into a bag to increase the CO2 in our respiratory system.
That is true, but the reason is not that we “need CO2 to survive”, but that the breathing reflex works not by low O2 contents in the blood but by high CO2. The danger with hyperventilating is that essentially all CO2 is vented from the blood stream and the breathing reflex stops. Then the O2 level falls dangerously low before CO2 has risen enough to activate the breathing reflex again. (This, by the way, is a good argument against intelligent design.)
Without CO2 we could not grow plants and the world’s oxygen supply as well as its food supply would be drastically reduced.
That is also true. Many people who reject either AGW or that AGW is a problem calls CO2 the “gas of life”. But the fact is that there is a limit on how much CO2 will benefit plant growth. One reason is that there must be additional nutrition (fertiliser) available to match the increased CO2. Also, rising global temperature is generally speaking not beneficial for plants.
I’ve downloaded that paper, and will try to read it later.
There was once a methane, nitrogen, and CO2 atmosphere. Life on earth was anaerobic. Then Cyanobacteria evolved to use light to make food from H2O, CO2, and minerals, excreting O2. This combined with the methane. It also was poisonous to all the anaerobic life on earth. Some evolved to use oxygen to get more energy from food.
Too little CO2 caused “Snowball Earth”, melted by CO2 from volcanic eruptions.
Over the last billion years, the % Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere have varied.
Higher O2 means more fires, showing as fusain layers in coal deposits.
Any geologists comments on these statements?
The papers sure haven’t been cited a lot. Which could be telling, given the wild claims.
From my understanding they don’t use a lot of data input as compared to recent climate models (which have become quite good at predicting how things evolve). It looks more like they confirm what is basically simulation findings (where you have a lot of control over sim parameters) because the findings explain the one fact that’s not well explained by the mainstream theory, but disregarding in the process all of the other facts that are well explained by the mainstream theory.
I wouldn’t classify them as BS but definitely not very relevant (until more scientists reproduce, explore, confirm by other methods, etc.).
