Further ramblings from an old man on Climate and the Big Bang

Apr 30, 2020
15
1
35
Foreword

As quite a few of you will know, I believe the Big Bang Theory is nonsense. However, it has become pandemic in its ability to infect everyone's mind from birth because no one wants to annoy 'teacher' do they?

We can always use the leader’s eyes and put our trust in paradise
but that’s just hiding truth in lies.
We germinate the seeds young minds acquire.
To raise a hand could risk hell fire
for those whose teachers were unkind.
“Joslin, are you stupid or just blind?
Just follow the rules and don’t enquire
or face expulsion from life’s choir”


Fortunately there are some extremely well qualified scientists who like me believe that the whole idea is preposterous and are brave enough to contradict it. However, despite demonstrating that the method of measuring distance by red shift is flawed and gathering in large numbers to call for a complete reassessment of the theory, institutions which have granted honours to the proponents of Big Bang are still reluctant to admit it is highly questionable. It might risk damaging their lofty reputations.
What upsets me however is the continuous preoccupation of the scientific community with a subject which is completely irrelevant to our increasingly fragile existence on this planet through Global Warming.
We should be spending our time working on practical ways to ameliorate the damage we have caused to the planet because of the way we have pursued the use of fossil fuels. Instead we distract ourselves with 'flights of fancy' and pretty simulated pictures of the Universe putting aside the fact that nothing we see is actually there.
We dream of escaping from a ruined Earth to planets that look 'suitable' when it’s highly probable that they may already be extinct. So, to attempt to focus your minds on a sensible plan of action, I plead with you to read the following paper. If you think it's better to spend our time in reality than dwelling on the falseness of what we see all around us however appealing a pastime that is, please spread it around.
Although it is aimed principally at the UK’s position, it is flexible enough to cater for every country’s economy.

An Economically Justifiable Proposal to Tackle Climate Change

Summary

  • I have attempted in this paper to offer a practical solution to the problem of Climate Change. Clearly, only global action will ameliorate the dire situation the world is facing but we must strive as a nation to do everything in our power as quickly as possible to reduce our own carbon footprint. I believe no other proposals I have studied can accomplish this either as quickly or as financially attractively as the one I suggest.
  • I have provided the evidence to substantiate why the most expedient method available to the UK is by using the sun's energy to accomplish this by the use of domestic and commercial solar panels. One hour's duration of the energy which reaches Earth from the sun each day would power the entire planet's needs for a whole year!
  • The main problem associated with using green energy from both wind and solar sources is how to store it. This can be overcome as I describe below by using this 'free' electrical energy to manufacture hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. This can be liquefied and stored for use at our discretion. I have fully described how this process works and how the associated infrastructure costs are financially feasible.
  • Ironically, the most important of my findings is that by following the route I describe, an enormous financial benefit will accrue to the UK's economy which makes the programme worth carrying out on that score alone.
  • An initial expenditure of £30 billion spent over 5 years and financed through existing low interest rates would allow us to install the first 10 million domestic solar panel installations. An estimated 300,000 mainly outdoor jobs would be created almost immediately which would boost our economy and be largely unaffected by Coronavirus restrictions.
  • This first 5 years expenditure would be more than matched by the concomitant savings made over the next 25 years, the expected life-span predicted for solar systems. In that period of time the power thus generated will save the country an estimated £112 billion based on current electricity costs.
  • More importantly, the action I prescribe would reduce our CO2 emissions over the next 25 years by a massive 1.75 billion tonnes.
  • We must not overlook the associated benefits of better public health and the ability of people to be hopeful for their future at one of the direst times in our history. I presented my ideas extremely briefly at a local Climate Change meeting a year ago. Several people approached me afterwards saying I had given them hope in the realisation that there is actually something tangible that can be done.
  • In an age when many jobs are being replaced by robots, this proposal offers significant work opportunities which will remove hundreds of thousands of people from the unemployed registers.
Discussion
Please take a look at what the environment correspondent of the BBC said recently on the link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736
I quote from it:

Do you remember the good old days when we had ‘12 years to save the planet’?

Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in
global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world's top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.

Why is it so hot and is climate change to blame?

"The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can't be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.
The sense that the end of next year is the last chance saloon for climate change is becoming clearer all the time.

"I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival," said Prince Charles, speaking at a reception for Commonwealth foreign ministers recently.

The Prince was looking ahead to a series of critical UN meetings that are due to take place between now and the end of 2020.Ever since a global climate agreement was signed in Paris in December 2015, negotiators have been consumed with arguing about the rulebook for the pact. But under the terms of the deal, countries have also promised to improve their carbon-cutting plans by the end of next year.

Residential and industrial heating processes contribute a huge amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to the atmosphere. I did some calculations last year in connection with CO2 emissions arising from transport and established that an average car contributes about the same amount of CO2 as heating and lighting an average home. This surprised me but pie graph confirm my findings.

Domestic heating and lighting together with domestic transportation are responsible for over 50% of the country’s CO2 emissions! I’ve looked at many other graphs showing the numerous ways in which we pollute the air with CO2. I believe these encourage us to seek ‘piecemeal’ solutions for various sources of emissions rather than seeking a broader and more effective overall solution as I suggest.
Logic dictates that if we are to urgently tackle climate change, we need to find a plan of action that has an important element common to all of our problems and which links them together into one major solution. The production of hydrogen by the hydrolysis of water using renewable sources of energy offers such a means and is the reason why it has interested me for about 20 years.
The link https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/7/5/hydrogen-made-by-the-electrolysis-of-water-is-now-cost-competitive-and-gives-us-another-building-block-for-the-low-carbon-economy describes how efficient this process is.
I quote from it:
Hydrogen from electrolysis
The world produces about 50 million tonnes a year of hydrogen. (Some sources suggest it is more than this). The gas is used as an additive in oil refineries, as a raw material for making ammonia and for many different industrial processes including, for example, the making of margarine.
Almost all hydrogen is made today from what is known as ‘steam reforming’, usually of methane (the main constituent of natural gas). A stream of gas is mixed with high temperature steam in the presence of a catalyst. The eventual output of the process is a mixture of CO2 and hydrogen. The valuable hydrogen is collected and the CO2vented to the atmosphere. If my calculations are correct, the hydrogen produced today through the steam reforming process is resulting in approximately 500 million tonnes of emissions a year, or well over 1% of global GHGs.
Hydrogen can also be made using electrolysis of water. Electricity is used to split the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. If made using water electrolysis, global hydrogen production would today use about 15% of world electricity generation. When manufacture of H2 is switched from using methane to employing surplus electricity, hydrogen will be an important method of balancing the world’s grids. When power is abundant, the electrolysers will be turned on. Their work will stop when electricity gets scarce.
In the past, electrolysis was very rarely employed because the energy source, electricity, was more expensive than the gas used for steam reforming.
Is this still true? We need to investigate the energy efficiency of steam reforming and its operating and capital costs as well as the relative prices of gas and electricity.
Very roughly, a new electrolysis plant today delivers energy efficiency of around 80%. That is, the energy value of the hydrogen produced is about 80% of the electricity used to split the water molecule. Steam reforming is around 65% efficient.”

We don’t have the time to explore the myriads of innovations currently on offer when the hydrolysis of water to produce hydrogen has been an established solution for a considerable time. Although many entrepreneurs are seeking ways to promote their own methods and/or their equipment, I would urge the government to concentrate its time on seeking ways in which this proven method of reducing CO2 emissions can be exploited in an urgent programme of change.
There are three main sources of CO2 emissions:
  • The business, industry, agriculture and public sector which includes a substantial element of travel
  • Residential
  • Domestic travel
Over the last couple of decades, the sun’s energy has been increasingly utilised by converting it into electricity using solar voltaic panels. These have become progressively cheaper through mass production favourably changing their economic perspective.
This has made solar voltaic panels not only the principle means of reducing CO2 but equally importantly emphasised their economic advantages
I discuss below how each sector of the market would benefit from their extensive use.
The Domestic Energy Consumer
From https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/solar-photovoltaic an average house with a suitable aspect can now be equipped with an array of solar panels for as little as £5,500 capable of generating a peak output of 3.75 kilowatts, amounting to approximately 3,000 kWh per annum. I have seen 4 kW installations offered at £4,250 but prefer making a conservative case for my arguments.
An average 3.75 kW installation is currently guaranteed to work reliably for at least 20 years only losing during that time up to 20% of its generating capability. With bulk buying on a much larger scale than presently, I surmise that the cost of an average installation could be reduced to about £3,000. This is equivalent to £300 p.a. over a normal 10 year write-off period. Currently, a person who has installed solar panels on his roof exports about 50% of the electricity generated for which his energy supplier pays him about 3 pence per unit which amounts to £45 p.a. Additionally, he will use about 50% of power generated, 1,500 kWh p.a., to replace what he would have spent on buying it from his energy supplier at about 14.7 pence per kWh. This has saved him a further £220 p.a. After less than 12 years, he has broken even and thereafter saves about £265 p.a. for the life of his installation also rendering him largely immune from energy price inflation.
For every domestic customer who installs a solar panel array, another’s needs are satisfied because each domestic installation exports about half as much as its owner consumes. Thus a saving in CO2 emissions of 7 tonnes p.a. occurs with every domestic solar panel installation.
Internet sources advise me that so far only 800,000 houses have installed solar voltaic panels. Effectively at present therefore, they have reduced our CO2 emissions by a staggering 5,600,000 tonnes per annum.
The following link suggests that we should be aiming at the equivalent of 10 million houses with solar voltaic installations.
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/blog/present-and-future-uk-solar-power?gclid=Cj0KCQjwsuP5BRCoARIsAPtX_wFiT6lwHA60DKo5T26N-IBFZ4Y43f4W1da26WHK5Y6rgi_pWK31JpYaAi7xEALw_wcb
Most houses use natural gas to heat their homes. In this respect, replacing it with hydrogen can eliminate the emissions of CO2 from their boilers. Hydrogen is already being introduced into gas distribution systems. It has been produced either by the electrolysis of water described above or by combining methane (CH4) with water (H2O) to form a mixture of CO2 and Hydrogen from which the later is extracted. This process is less expensive to construct but less effective.
The following link deals with the technicalities of using domestic boilers when fuelled by hydrogen. It is encouraging to say the least.
https://www.boilerguide.co.uk/articles/hydrogen-boilers-alternative-gas-central-heating
The Energy Supplier

According to the government website https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators the average price paid by our energy suppliers on the wholesale market is about £50 per megawatt hour for electricity or 5 pence/kWh. An enormous opportunity exists for them to obtain their supplies at a reduced and reliable price by engaging themselves in promoting and even financing domestic solar panel installations. At present, they import power from domestic sources at only 3 pence a kWh. By entering into contracts with domestic and commercial property owners, I’m sure it would pay them to loan their customers the cost of installing solar panels in return for abandoning paying them for any exported electricity. Their main source of income would remain with their charge for electricity consumed by their customers.
What’s more, financial inducements by the government would become unnecessary. The process would become self-financing.
The Domestic Car Owner
I fear that too much store has already been placed in using electric cars to solve our problems of CO2 emissions without fully understanding their shortcomings.
  • They are still too expensive for the pockets of the average car owner
  • There are still only about 40,000 fully electric vehicles in use out of some 33,000,000 privately owned vehicles
  • The infrastructure is completely unable to deal with the millions of battery-fuelled vehicles which would be needed to make a real difference. Most car owners do not have off-road battery charging facilities. Allowing hundreds of thousands of electric cables to stretch across pedestrian pavements is out of the question.
  • The only way that electric car charging can be facilitated in numbers great enough to make them truly feasible would be to cease trying to manufacture batteries for them with huge distance capabilities. Instead, make electric car manufacturers globally standardise on one type of rechargeable battery which is interchangeable between all electric cars. Filling stations could then move from being fossil fuel distributors to battery replacement centres with their own daytime re-charging facilities powered by renewable energy.
  • We must urgently encourage workers and their employers to adapt permanently to far less centralisation. Covid 19 has shown how millions of us can comfortably work from home. Perhaps we should be putting job performance before workers’ timed physical presence?
  • Car-sharing must be encouraged and more ‘Park and Rides’ made available.
  • We must exponentially increase the number and use of electrically-powered buses, coaches, cycles, motorcycles and trains.
  • The use of private cars in town and city centres should be progressively discouraged forcing people to acclimatise to public transport or use Park and Rides thus stimulating investment in public transport opportunities. In my own town, a once active P&R is now disused mainly due to inadequate bus services and Council policies which do not encourage them.
  • It would be a good idea to reduce the national maximum speed limit to 50 mph nationally. This was done in 1976 to overcome fuel shortages. It would reduce vehicle fuel consumption by an estimated 15-20% reducing not only our CO2 emissions but also our oil imports. Incidentally, this has been shown to also reduce overall journey times.
The Government and the Economy
The following link confirms my views concerning the practicalities of using hydrogen to replace natural gas.
https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/7/5/hydrogen-made-by-the-electrolysis-of-water-is-now-cost-competitive-and-gives-us-another-building-block-for-the-low-carbon-economy
From information provided in https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/uk-natural-gas-imports/ I am able to make some useful deductions.
In 2017, we had a net import of Natural Gas totalling 34.3 million tonnes of TOE (tonnes of oil equivalent. From an internet source, “Gas is one of the key pillars of the UK’s energy mix, accounting for 29 per cent of the UK’s energy production and second only to oil. Gas production from the UK’s Continental Shelf (UKCS) would have been sufficient to meet nearly 50 per cent of UK demand in 2019. Gas is particularly important for electricity generation where it meets around 40 per cent of the fuel required in power stations. It is also critical for space heating, domestically and in offices, hotels and restaurants. In 2019 gas met nearly two thirds of total domestic energy demand…….”
The cost of natural gas fluctuates significantly on the international market and is currently about £2.24 per MMBtu (million British Thermal Units). This means our net imports of gas are costing the economy about £2.4 billion per annum. If our net importation of natural gas was entirely replaced by the production of hydrogen using solar power, the cost of converting electricity to hydrogen would be largely met by its savings.
I was urging a decade or so ago that energy tariffs should be progressive. Currently, large consumers pay less per unit than the smallest. This is irrational. I would suggest that in order to reduce CO2 emissions, we must encourage frugality and provide the incentives to do so. Only by linking fuel extravagance to higher tariff prices will this be accomplished.
The most important aspect of my proposal is the sheer economic advantage arising from the measures I have suggested.
The Main Problem with Renewable Energy and its Solution
The generation of electrical power from solar panels is relatively easy. The real problem has always been how to store it. The principle ways of generating renewable energy by wind power and solar panels are susceptible to weather conditions. Solar panels can only generate power during about 8-10 hours of the day with varying production rates depending on their geographic location and aspect. It is imperative that we quickly establish and put into place a means to store the electrical power they generate.
Generating more solar power than we need to run our economy during sunlight hours will allow us to use the surplus to hydrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen, its two constituents. The hydrogen can be liquefied and stored as a 24 hours a day standby. This would balance supply and demand by cleanly fuelling electricity generation at power stations using gas turbines connected to the national grid.
More information on solar panels is available in the link https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/solar-photovoltaic/
Some very important points made by my son suggest that the “UK's renewable energy profile is somewhat imbalanced at the moment with world-beating offshore wind but unexploited rooftop solar power opportunities. More solar power might, for example, have obviated the need to use a coal-fired power station during the August 2020 heatwave. More generally, rooftop solar power would be produced at the same time as maximum future demand on the electricity network for air-conditioning, which more people will be using in future”.
In this regard, perhaps it should become mandatory for all new houses and commercial premises to be equipped with solar panels provided the sites are technically suitable. In the case of the average house, the cost of their installation would represent a mere 2% of its market price and could justifiably be covered by a government grant.
Last but not least, already a significant number of trains and large road vehicles used for public transport and the carriage of goods and materials are now being equipped with hydrogen fuel cells and electric motors. Without the space restrictions of smaller vehicles, liquefied hydrogen can be carried on board in pressurised tanks to fuel the cells which convert hydrogen into electricity on demand. The use of a gaseous fuel such as hydrogen to fuel cars is not novel. During the Second World War, fuel shortages encouraged the use of coal gas to drive cars converted from petrol. The coal gas was carried in huge bags attached to the roofs of the cars. Need is the mother of invention! Research is already underway to develop liquefied hydrogen tanks small enough for cars. It’s only a matter of time before filling stations will provide not only battery charging and replacement facilities but liquefied hydrogen ‘pumps’. Quite rightly, fossil fuels will have had their day.
The case for shipping using hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines is overwhelming. Australia’s wish to use its coal resources to fuel the hydrolysis of water to make hydrogen which they can then export by ship to another country is mind-boggling; especially when they have thousands of square miles of emptiness and sunshine to equip with solar panels! One would think that with temperatures of 50o Centigrade and huge firestorms, they would have got the message!
 

Gringoz

BANNED
Oct 3, 2020
69
2
55
Foreword

As quite a few of you will know, I believe the Big Bang Theory is nonsense. However, it has become pandemic in its ability to infect everyone's mind from birth because no one wants to annoy 'teacher' do they?

We can always use the leader’s eyes and put our trust in paradise
but that’s just hiding truth in lies.
We germinate the seeds young minds acquire.
To raise a hand could risk hell fire
for those whose teachers were unkind.
“Joslin, are you stupid or just blind?
Just follow the rules and don’t enquire
or face expulsion from life’s choir”


Fortunately there are some extremely well qualified scientists who like me believe that the whole idea is preposterous and are brave enough to contradict it. However, despite demonstrating that the method of measuring distance by red shift is flawed and gathering in large numbers to call for a complete reassessment of the theory, institutions which have granted honours to the proponents of Big Bang are still reluctant to admit it is highly questionable. It might risk damaging their lofty reputations.
What upsets me however is the continuous preoccupation of the scientific community with a subject which is completely irrelevant to our increasingly fragile existence on this planet through Global Warming.
We should be spending our time working on practical ways to ameliorate the damage we have caused to the planet because of the way we have pursued the use of fossil fuels. Instead we distract ourselves with 'flights of fancy' and pretty simulated pictures of the Universe putting aside the fact that nothing we see is actually there.
We dream of escaping from a ruined Earth to planets that look 'suitable' when it’s highly probable that they may already be extinct. So, to attempt to focus your minds on a sensible plan of action, I plead with you to read the following paper. If you think it's better to spend our time in reality than dwelling on the falseness of what we see all around us however appealing a pastime that is, please spread it around.
Although it is aimed principally at the UK’s position, it is flexible enough to cater for every country’s economy.

An Economically Justifiable Proposal to Tackle Climate Change

Summary

  • I have attempted in this paper to offer a practical solution to the problem of Climate Change. Clearly, only global action will ameliorate the dire situation the world is facing but we must strive as a nation to do everything in our power as quickly as possible to reduce our own carbon footprint. I believe no other proposals I have studied can accomplish this either as quickly or as financially attractively as the one I suggest.
  • I have provided the evidence to substantiate why the most expedient method available to the UK is by using the sun's energy to accomplish this by the use of domestic and commercial solar panels. One hour's duration of the energy which reaches Earth from the sun each day would power the entire planet's needs for a whole year!
  • The main problem associated with using green energy from both wind and solar sources is how to store it. This can be overcome as I describe below by using this 'free' electrical energy to manufacture hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. This can be liquefied and stored for use at our discretion. I have fully described how this process works and how the associated infrastructure costs are financially feasible.
  • Ironically, the most important of my findings is that by following the route I describe, an enormous financial benefit will accrue to the UK's economy which makes the programme worth carrying out on that score alone.
  • An initial expenditure of £30 billion spent over 5 years and financed through existing low interest rates would allow us to install the first 10 million domestic solar panel installations. An estimated 300,000 mainly outdoor jobs would be created almost immediately which would boost our economy and be largely unaffected by Coronavirus restrictions.
  • This first 5 years expenditure would be more than matched by the concomitant savings made over the next 25 years, the expected life-span predicted for solar systems. In that period of time the power thus generated will save the country an estimated £112 billion based on current electricity costs.
  • More importantly, the action I prescribe would reduce our CO2 emissions over the next 25 years by a massive 1.75 billion tonnes.
  • We must not overlook the associated benefits of better public health and the ability of people to be hopeful for their future at one of the direst times in our history. I presented my ideas extremely briefly at a local Climate Change meeting a year ago. Several people approached me afterwards saying I had given them hope in the realisation that there is actually something tangible that can be done.
  • In an age when many jobs are being replaced by robots, this proposal offers significant work opportunities which will remove hundreds of thousands of people from the unemployed registers.
Discussion
Please take a look at what the environment correspondent of the BBC said recently on the link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736
I quote from it:

Do you remember the good old days when we had ‘12 years to save the planet’?

Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in
global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world's top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.

Why is it so hot and is climate change to blame?

"The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can't be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.
The sense that the end of next year is the last chance saloon for climate change is becoming clearer all the time.

"I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival," said Prince Charles, speaking at a reception for Commonwealth foreign ministers recently.

The Prince was looking ahead to a series of critical UN meetings that are due to take place between now and the end of 2020.Ever since a global climate agreement was signed in Paris in December 2015, negotiators have been consumed with arguing about the rulebook for the pact. But under the terms of the deal, countries have also promised to improve their carbon-cutting plans by the end of next year.


Residential and industrial heating processes contribute a huge amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to the atmosphere. I did some calculations last year in connection with CO2 emissions arising from transport and established that an average car contributes about the same amount of CO2 as heating and lighting an average home. This surprised me but pie graph confirm my findings.

Domestic heating and lighting together with domestic transportation are responsible for over 50% of the country’s CO2 emissions! I’ve looked at many other graphs showing the numerous ways in which we pollute the air with CO2. I believe these encourage us to seek ‘piecemeal’ solutions for various sources of emissions rather than seeking a broader and more effective overall solution as I suggest.
Logic dictates that if we are to urgently tackle climate change, we need to find a plan of action that has an important element common to all of our problems and which links them together into one major solution. The production of hydrogen by the hydrolysis of water using renewable sources of energy offers such a means and is the reason why it has interested me for about 20 years.
The link https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/7/5/hydrogen-made-by-the-electrolysis-of-water-is-now-cost-competitive-and-gives-us-another-building-block-for-the-low-carbon-economy describes how efficient this process is.
I quote from it:
Hydrogen from electrolysis
The world produces about 50 million tonnes a year of hydrogen. (Some sources suggest it is more than this). The gas is used as an additive in oil refineries, as a raw material for making ammonia and for many different industrial processes including, for example, the making of margarine.
Almost all hydrogen is made today from what is known as ‘steam reforming’, usually of methane (the main constituent of natural gas). A stream of gas is mixed with high temperature steam in the presence of a catalyst. The eventual output of the process is a mixture of CO2 and hydrogen. The valuable hydrogen is collected and the CO2vented to the atmosphere. If my calculations are correct, the hydrogen produced today through the steam reforming process is resulting in approximately 500 million tonnes of emissions a year, or well over 1% of global GHGs.
Hydrogen can also be made using electrolysis of water. Electricity is used to split the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. If made using water electrolysis, global hydrogen production would today use about 15% of world electricity generation. When manufacture of H2 is switched from using methane to employing surplus electricity, hydrogen will be an important method of balancing the world’s grids. When power is abundant, the electrolysers will be turned on. Their work will stop when electricity gets scarce.
In the past, electrolysis was very rarely employed because the energy source, electricity, was more expensive than the gas used for steam reforming.
Is this still true? We need to investigate the energy efficiency of steam reforming and its operating and capital costs as well as the relative prices of gas and electricity.
Very roughly, a new electrolysis plant today delivers energy efficiency of around 80%. That is, the energy value of the hydrogen produced is about 80% of the electricity used to split the water molecule. Steam reforming is around 65% efficient.”

We don’t have the time to explore the myriads of innovations currently on offer when the hydrolysis of water to produce hydrogen has been an established solution for a considerable time. Although many entrepreneurs are seeking ways to promote their own methods and/or their equipment, I would urge the government to concentrate its time on seeking ways in which this proven method of reducing CO2 emissions can be exploited in an urgent programme of change.
There are three main sources of CO2 emissions:
  • The business, industry, agriculture and public sector which includes a substantial element of travel
  • Residential
  • Domestic travel
Over the last couple of decades, the sun’s energy has been increasingly utilised by converting it into electricity using solar voltaic panels. These have become progressively cheaper through mass production favourably changing their economic perspective.
This has made solar voltaic panels not only the principle means of reducing CO2 but equally importantly emphasised their economic advantages
I discuss below how each sector of the market would benefit from their extensive use.
The Domestic Energy Consumer
From https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/solar-photovoltaic an average house with a suitable aspect can now be equipped with an array of solar panels for as little as £5,500 capable of generating a peak output of 3.75 kilowatts, amounting to approximately 3,000 kWh per annum. I have seen 4 kW installations offered at £4,250 but prefer making a conservative case for my arguments.
An average 3.75 kW installation is currently guaranteed to work reliably for at least 20 years only losing during that time up to 20% of its generating capability. With bulk buying on a much larger scale than presently, I surmise that the cost of an average installation could be reduced to about £3,000. This is equivalent to £300 p.a. over a normal 10 year write-off period. Currently, a person who has installed solar panels on his roof exports about 50% of the electricity generated for which his energy supplier pays him about 3 pence per unit which amounts to £45 p.a. Additionally, he will use about 50% of power generated, 1,500 kWh p.a., to replace what he would have spent on buying it from his energy supplier at about 14.7 pence per kWh. This has saved him a further £220 p.a. After less than 12 years, he has broken even and thereafter saves about £265 p.a. for the life of his installation also rendering him largely immune from energy price inflation.
For every domestic customer who installs a solar panel array, another’s needs are satisfied because each domestic installation exports about half as much as its owner consumes. Thus a saving in CO2 emissions of 7 tonnes p.a. occurs with every domestic solar panel installation.
Internet sources advise me that so far only 800,000 houses have installed solar voltaic panels. Effectively at present therefore, they have reduced our CO2 emissions by a staggering 5,600,000 tonnes per annum.
The following link suggests that we should be aiming at the equivalent of 10 million houses with solar voltaic installations.
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/blog/present-and-future-uk-solar-power?gclid=Cj0KCQjwsuP5BRCoARIsAPtX_wFiT6lwHA60DKo5T26N-IBFZ4Y43f4W1da26WHK5Y6rgi_pWK31JpYaAi7xEALw_wcb
Most houses use natural gas to heat their homes. In this respect, replacing it with hydrogen can eliminate the emissions of CO2 from their boilers. Hydrogen is already being introduced into gas distribution systems. It has been produced either by the electrolysis of water described above or by combining methane (CH4) with water (H2O) to form a mixture of CO2 and Hydrogen from which the later is extracted. This process is less expensive to construct but less effective.
The following link deals with the technicalities of using domestic boilers when fuelled by hydrogen. It is encouraging to say the least.
https://www.boilerguide.co.uk/articles/hydrogen-boilers-alternative-gas-central-heating
The Energy Supplier

According to the government website https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators the average price paid by our energy suppliers on the wholesale market is about £50 per megawatt hour for electricity or 5 pence/kWh. An enormous opportunity exists for them to obtain their supplies at a reduced and reliable price by engaging themselves in promoting and even financing domestic solar panel installations. At present, they import power from domestic sources at only 3 pence a kWh. By entering into contracts with domestic and commercial property owners, I’m sure it would pay them to loan their customers the cost of installing solar panels in return for abandoning paying them for any exported electricity. Their main source of income would remain with their charge for electricity consumed by their customers.
What’s more, financial inducements by the government would become unnecessary. The process would become self-financing.
The Domestic Car Owner
I fear that too much store has already been placed in using electric cars to solve our problems of CO2 emissions without fully understanding their shortcomings.
  • They are still too expensive for the pockets of the average car owner
  • There are still only about 40,000 fully electric vehicles in use out of some 33,000,000 privately owned vehicles
  • The infrastructure is completely unable to deal with the millions of battery-fuelled vehicles which would be needed to make a real difference. Most car owners do not have off-road battery charging facilities. Allowing hundreds of thousands of electric cables to stretch across pedestrian pavements is out of the question.
  • The only way that electric car charging can be facilitated in numbers great enough to make them truly feasible would be to cease trying to manufacture batteries for them with huge distance capabilities. Instead, make electric car manufacturers globally standardise on one type of rechargeable battery which is interchangeable between all electric cars. Filling stations could then move from being fossil fuel distributors to battery replacement centres with their own daytime re-charging facilities powered by renewable energy.
  • We must urgently encourage workers and their employers to adapt permanently to far less centralisation. Covid 19 has shown how millions of us can comfortably work from home. Perhaps we should be putting job performance before workers’ timed physical presence?
  • Car-sharing must be encouraged and more ‘Park and Rides’ made available.
  • We must exponentially increase the number and use of electrically-powered buses, coaches, cycles, motorcycles and trains.
  • The use of private cars in town and city centres should be progressively discouraged forcing people to acclimatise to public transport or use Park and Rides thus stimulating investment in public transport opportunities. In my own town, a once active P&R is now disused mainly due to inadequate bus services and Council policies which do not encourage them.
  • It would be a good idea to reduce the national maximum speed limit to 50 mph nationally. This was done in 1976 to overcome fuel shortages. It would reduce vehicle fuel consumption by an estimated 15-20% reducing not only our CO2 emissions but also our oil imports. Incidentally, this has been shown to also reduce overall journey times.
The Government and the Economy
The following link confirms my views concerning the practicalities of using hydrogen to replace natural gas.
https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/7/5/hydrogen-made-by-the-electrolysis-of-water-is-now-cost-competitive-and-gives-us-another-building-block-for-the-low-carbon-economy
From information provided in https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/uk-natural-gas-imports/ I am able to make some useful deductions.
In 2017, we had a net import of Natural Gas totalling 34.3 million tonnes of TOE (tonnes of oil equivalent. From an internet source, “Gas is one of the key pillars of the UK’s energy mix, accounting for 29 per cent of the UK’s energy production and second only to oil. Gas production from the UK’s Continental Shelf (UKCS) would have been sufficient to meet nearly 50 per cent of UK demand in 2019. Gas is particularly important for electricity generation where it meets around 40 per cent of the fuel required in power stations. It is also critical for space heating, domestically and in offices, hotels and restaurants. In 2019 gas met nearly two thirds of total domestic energy demand…….”
The cost of natural gas fluctuates significantly on the international market and is currently about £2.24 per MMBtu (million British Thermal Units). This means our net imports of gas are costing the economy about £2.4 billion per annum. If our net importation of natural gas was entirely replaced by the production of hydrogen using solar power, the cost of converting electricity to hydrogen would be largely met by its savings.
I was urging a decade or so ago that energy tariffs should be progressive. Currently, large consumers pay less per unit than the smallest. This is irrational. I would suggest that in order to reduce CO2 emissions, we must encourage frugality and provide the incentives to do so. Only by linking fuel extravagance to higher tariff prices will this be accomplished.
The most important aspect of my proposal is the sheer economic advantage arising from the measures I have suggested.
The Main Problem with Renewable Energy and its Solution
The generation of electrical power from solar panels is relatively easy. The real problem has always been how to store it. The principle ways of generating renewable energy by wind power and solar panels are susceptible to weather conditions. Solar panels can only generate power during about 8-10 hours of the day with varying production rates depending on their geographic location and aspect. It is imperative that we quickly establish and put into place a means to store the electrical power they generate.
Generating more solar power than we need to run our economy during sunlight hours will allow us to use the surplus to hydrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen, its two constituents. The hydrogen can be liquefied and stored as a 24 hours a day standby. This would balance supply and demand by cleanly fuelling electricity generation at power stations using gas turbines connected to the national grid.
More information on solar panels is available in the link https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/solar-photovoltaic/
Some very important points made by my son suggest that the “UK's renewable energy profile is somewhat imbalanced at the moment with world-beating offshore wind but unexploited rooftop solar power opportunities. More solar power might, for example, have obviated the need to use a coal-fired power station during the August 2020 heatwave. More generally, rooftop solar power would be produced at the same time as maximum future demand on the electricity network for air-conditioning, which more people will be using in future”.
In this regard, perhaps it should become mandatory for all new houses and commercial premises to be equipped with solar panels provided the sites are technically suitable. In the case of the average house, the cost of their installation would represent a mere 2% of its market price and could justifiably be covered by a government grant.
Last but not least, already a significant number of trains and large road vehicles used for public transport and the carriage of goods and materials are now being equipped with hydrogen fuel cells and electric motors. Without the space restrictions of smaller vehicles, liquefied hydrogen can be carried on board in pressurised tanks to fuel the cells which convert hydrogen into electricity on demand. The use of a gaseous fuel such as hydrogen to fuel cars is not novel. During the Second World War, fuel shortages encouraged the use of coal gas to drive cars converted from petrol. The coal gas was carried in huge bags attached to the roofs of the cars. Need is the mother of invention! Research is already underway to develop liquefied hydrogen tanks small enough for cars. It’s only a matter of time before filling stations will provide not only battery charging and replacement facilities but liquefied hydrogen ‘pumps’. Quite rightly, fossil fuels will have had their day.
The case for shipping using hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines is overwhelming. Australia’s wish to use its coal resources to fuel the hydrolysis of water to make hydrogen which they can then export by ship to another country is mind-boggling; especially when they have thousands of square miles of emptiness and sunshine to equip with solar panels! One would think that with temperatures of 50o Centigrade and huge firestorms, they would have got the message!
If the big bang were real, then the trajectory of the objects put in motion by the bang could all be traced back to point zero which would be in the center of a large void and the majority of mass in the universe would form a sort of shell emanating from the zero point and or moment. None of this exist, this was posed to theoretical physicist who now say that the big bang was not a place but a time when everything just began.

Gilligans Island makes more sense
 
Sep 23, 2020
65
4
55
If the big bang were real, then the trajectory of the objects put in motion by the bang could all be traced back to point zero which would be in the center of a large void and the majority of mass in the universe would form a sort of shell emanating from the zero point and or moment. None of this exist, this was posed to theoretical physicist who now say that the big bang was not a place but a time when everything just began.

Gilligans Island makes more sense
 
Sep 23, 2020
65
4
55
That's just it we don't know where the Big Bang happened don't forget einsteins theory for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction and when and if the Big Bang happened the hole or whatever had to be driven somewhere don't you think
 

Gringoz

BANNED
Oct 3, 2020
69
2
55
That's just it we don't know where the Big Bang happened don't forget einsteins theory for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction and when and if the Big Bang happened the hole or whatever had to be driven somewhere don't you think
There is no evidence that there ever was a big bang so that said something that may not have happened can not have consequences. The sad fact is that nothing observed is understood, we do not even know what we are.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts