The future of diesel inboards in an all electric future

[F18 Sailor]

And unfortunately, the evidence is against hydrogen. The cost. The volume. The complexity. The long term reliability and repairability. A 6kW fuel cell "stack" costs $27K. Then you have to get the large tanks - tanks that take much higher pressure than scuba tanks. The cheap part is the electric motor. By the time you are done I'm guessing that you are in the range of $35K-$40K. Labor costs are additional. And you won't get the sort of lifetime with that system that you get with a diesel.

The closest hydrogen fueling station to Maryland is in Canada. Next closest is the west coast. Who knows if that is "green" hydrogen, or hydrogen from fossil fuels. And you have to get that to the boat - more high pressure tanks, and even if you go fetch it with an EV who knows how much of the electricity used by the EV on the trip was generated by fossil fuels. On the other hand I pass right by a gas station that sells diesel when I am driving to the boat. A 5 gallon fuel can fits perfectly in the trunk of my Miata.

I use around 40 gallons of diesel a season. I figure that I've got another 20 or so seasons left to my sailing career, so that's 800 gallons. There is a good chance that my 22 year old diesel will last another 20 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of fossil fuel energy used to produce the components in the above hydrogen system (especially the tanks) would be a significant fraction of my future diesel consumption.

Let's see...

I have a 24 gallon diesel tank. An aluminum scuba tank holds ~ 3 gallons and weighs 35 lbs, and is rated at 3000 psi. If we assume that the hydrogen fuel cell system is twice as efficient as my diesel I would need tanks that hold 120 gallons at 5000 psi (see my earlier post for some calcs on fuel volume). A scuba tank that could take 5000 psi would be considerably heavier - 35 lbs*5000 psi/3000 psi = 58 lbs. And you would need (120/3) = 40 of them = 2320 lbs = 1.05 tonnes. Now it takes 15,000 kWH of electricity to make one tonne of aluminum. One gallon of diesel has about 40kWH of energy. Assuming a greatly optimistic 50% efficiency in generating electricity from fossil fuels, it would take 1.05 tonnes * 15,000 kWH / 40 / 0.50 = the equivalent of 788 gallons of diesel just to make the aluminum for the tanks.

If the tanks are made of steel the energy needed to make the steel is significantly less but the tanks will still be heavy. Using fewer, larger tanks may reduce the total weight, but as tank diameter increases the wall thickness also has to increase. My diesel (3GM30F) and a full tank of diesel weighs around 500 lbs. Add in 200 lbs guesstimate for the fuel tank itself, intake, and exhaust plumbing. For the fuel cell system let's say that the hydrogen tanks + plumbing + fuel cell stack + electric drive motor = 2500 lbs. So the fuel cell system will be 1,800 lbs heavier than the diesel system.


So, going to hydrogen is insanely expensive, may not really be that green of an option, hard to find fuel for, and adds a heck of alot of weight to the boat.




http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2011/07/15/electricity-consumption-in-the-production-of-aluminium/

You're correct with regards to cost...hence my statement, and others, that lithium has killed Hydrogen.

You definitely need the tanks for propulsion systems, and no way are you storing this at any pressure in any boat hull. They are far, far too leaky. Trust me, I've investigated this at length, as have plenty of other people. Even a 1/4" of solid carbon won't keep hydrogen trapped.

You are wrong about the tank weights...scuba tanks are an apt comparison for the layperson, but not what you would use on a boat. You would use large Type IV carbon overwrapped pressure vessels. While still nowhere near as light as a diesel tank, they are ~1/4 the weight of the scuba tank you mention. I also don't think you need the volume; you can supplement H2 with solar and regen from the prop while sailing.

Their used to be a commercial H2 refueling station in DC, now closed, but you can get 5000 psi from Airgas and other vendors. That part is fairly trivial, but a bit more work than diesel.

 

[robalex117]

The yacht builder was on the H2 bandwagon early. But they have been very quite for the last 18 months or so. They were very proud of the actual H2 tanks. Sourcing them from some company in CO.
http://www.daedalusyachts.com

 

[a8b]

This thread has been reduced geeks sitting in the corner of the lunchroom and spouting utter bullshit to each other about things they have no fucking clue about. Half the world's crops are grown with fertilizer, and 80% of the ammonia produced globally is used in fertilizer production. We are not "dumping it overboard!" It is a key requirement for our food system supporting 8 billion humans, and it is yet another significant way that we are much more committed to using fossil resources than we want to believe.

While this is all correct, using fossil resources for food is not really a problem for climate change, right?

It's not that we don't want to change - there have to be real workable, scalable solutions in order to change.

There are. There are also very wealthy powerful people whose cash flows would be deeply impacted if we do and they pay huge sums to have people lie to us about it.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Do you have any real life experience in industries where food is grown, where building materials are produced, where goods are manufactured? (On a real scale, not a backyard in Portland.) Or if you are a techie, maybe you know firsthand about the mining of rare earth metals and subsequent production of chips and semiconductors etc. I don't think so. You just write fantasy pieces after parsing what you have read on the internet after leaving out the unfortunate reality bits that make your dreams unworkable. In other words, you are a bullshitter.

You can be a bullshitter and also have all these experiences.
But this is absolutely the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

The bit that's really offensive is your sanctimoniousness.

A mighty Huzza!

We diesel owners are akin to slaveholders(!). Obviously written by

an idiot.
I mean, of all the techs that can easily/cheaply go carbon neutral, diesel is number one. Change a few rubber seals and run raw veggie oil/meat fat/Algae Oil. BAM! Carbon loop closed.

What you are saying is that batteries "cannot take it" this really depends on the battery type, capacity and other factors.

Fuck off.
It means lithium's cannot take it. And it is simple. The Charge C is a fraction of the output C.
To stupid it down a bit for you they can be putting out say, 100A, to push a motor, but cannot take said 100A to charge.
Well, they can, but it means a rather large pack that can deliver far more than 100A out. A pack so large that the Charge capacity can equal the Amps the motors need.

Generally lithium batteries have high rates, so it's not the batteries limiting regen.

It literally is.

The issue is, you need dynamic variable pitch and variable camber (if possible) for each individual propeller blade giving you similar to something like cyclic on helicopter but dynamically and automatically driven in harmony with the sea state to extract maximum power.

Jesus help me!
All of this is bullshit. Helicopters do not work like this and none of this is needed.
There are plenty of very efficient electric drives that need neither the complexity and cost of dynamic foils.
They do just fine with the simple, well built, well designed props they have.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

This is also needed to produce efficient propulsion, otherwise you will have lower efficiency in waves. The few times I tried to use an electric motor in waves I found my speed very low.

Because your shit sucks? just a thought...

In a kayak I time my paddle strokes to the waves. With sculling oar I also do this to some extent. Fish/whales etc all do this by feel. I dont know of a propeller arrangement that can do this for either regen or propulsion as it requires dynamically changing rpm, pitch and camber all within a single revolution. In the future it will likely exist. It is something a diesel engine can (probably) never do, but an electric propulsion system with smart controller could be capable of.

So in this fantasy, fantastic bullshit happens?
And how high were you?

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Before lithium batteries hydrogen systems were more relevant.

Hydrogen has never been relevant.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Take hydride storage for example. A way to store hydrogen without the pressure.. it would probably be a lot cheaper by now if lithium batteries were not around.

The miracles that will make hydrogen finally work is always just about here. It is, and always was, a scam. A scam funded by fossil fuels to divert attention from real alternatives.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Now in a lab they claim 98% efficiency converting electricity (and water) to hydrogen: hydrogen has by far the highest conversion efficiency from electricity of any fuels.

Oh fuck right off.
In that nuclear power creates more power than it consumes, you can fuck right off a second time.
In that solar panels and wind mills generate far more power over time than they consume, you can fuck right off a third and forth time.
In that growing actual crops for oil is WAY MORE EFFICIENT, and is an easy replacement for the infrastructure we already have, you can fuck off again.

There are a lot of underground caves, even old mines and so forth with significant volume enough to store many megawatt hours of energy with minimal cost.. so it will be explored as storage in that way and other stationary applications.

Because hydrogen is so famously easy to contain.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

... ammonia ammonia poisonous urine ?

blah blah blah.
Billions of dollars and effort into trying to sell hydrogen as something that is not shit, and we see them turning to shit to see if it is better hydrogen source. There is a word for this...

There will never be a day where someone will buy a quart/gallon/tank of ammonia/urine/other bullshit to power a hydrogen powered fishing trip/sailboat.

There are however a lot of other energy alternatives that you can do that with today.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

What do you mean "electrolyzer weight" ? It is not a heavy item. The size of the electrolyzer determines how fast it can produce gas at a given efficiency (simplification) and is not related to the total storage capacity. A 250 watt unit can be probably as light as a few ounces.. mine weights about a pound but is not weight optimized. For a given size (or weight) it is possible to make them run at higher powers and lower efficiencies as well. Another factor is, higher temperatures increase efficiency, so putting the electrolyzer in the sun with some reflectors could benefit it.

Ah, the smell of hot urine 24h a day!
I do not claim to be great at fantasy, but I think I could do better.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

As we know, drones on compressed hydrogen (6000psi) fly 3-5x longer than lithium powered ones.

Do 'we' know that?
How many hydrogen powered aircraft have flown around the world? Without refueling?
Why did the lithium powered aircraft that did flu all the fuck around the world not use fuel cells or hydrogen?
Is it because hydrogen is a myth created by fossil fuel companies to distract from real things that work?

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

I am not sure about the 10x over lithium by weight.. but certainly not by cost? It may be interesting to store hydrogen at pressure (say 500psi) in the amas of a trimaran if it were purposefully designed to store this pressure in the outer hulls. This would save a lot of weight vs having cylinders. At this point the energy stored becomes significant, 50-60 kwh (33ft trimaran) without the weight, cost and degradation of batteries. The issue is, I dont like any of the methods to turn this energy back into electricity.

Amas designed to store 6000PSI / 25KWH of hydrogen?

Are you literally fucking nuts? One crack and a spark from hitting something in the ocean and what the fuck do you think will happen?

Is your fantasy the most creative and stupid way to kill sailors expensively?

Generally, the propeller diameter needs to be at least half the beam of the boat and most people don't even attempt to do this.

No you fucking idiot. No one says this.
The reason larger props are more efficient is because they can spin slower, and drag is a cubic. Larger props can move more mass fast enough to create thrust, but do not have to throw it inefficiently fast.

ICE cannot spin a large prop because they do not have the torque at low RPM. So the prop suffers.
This is why a fixed point diesel electric generator and electric drive work well on boats.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Unfortunately this does not apply here, as there is plenty of evidence regarding hydrogen energy etc..

Plenty of physics to show it will never work, and there are better alternatives available right now.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

It does seem to apply to excuses for why people use diesel though.

Diesel, again, can easily become carbon neutral. Your fantasy cannot.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

In any case, a lot of you should be ashamed for arguing in favor of suicidal policy to allow superfluous fossil fuel use to continue. diesel engines are abomination with a long history of destruction and exploitation.

Bullshit.
The problem is not the few tonnes of fuel burned to move sailboats. With a technology that can easily be swapped to a carbon neutral source.

It is the gigatonnes of fossil fuels that are burned to make electric power and move cars.

Anything that distracts from that is bullshit.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Just as we view the slave owners of the past as the criminals they were, this is what the diesel junkies of today are.

I do not know if this is more offensive or stupid.
It has sufficient levels of both to render anything you ever say to be replied to with this stupid quote of yours.

You guys in this thread used the exact same selfish arguments (basically word for word) that were used to justify slavery. That you wouldn't be able to live with the conveniences and would have to do more tedious work (like rowing a boat etc)

Go fuck yourself.

Diesel is single-handedly used, to this day, to raise billions out of abject poverty. To free them from drudgery. And it is quite hopeful that it will be easy for them to switch to carbon neutral oil they can grow themselves.

Your demonization of diesel is wrong and horrible. So, expected from you.

As far as batteries solving the problem by becoming a four times or ten times or a zillion times more efficient, Where is the electricity going to come from?

Nuclear, solar and wind.

Nuclear, not a terribly bad solution but not until we figure out what to safely do with all the waste.

What do you think is nuclear waste?
Molten salt reactors eat what Americans call nuclear waste.

Windmills, again, large quantities of non-disposable/non-reusable waste, plus, being in the wrong place at the wrong time with engine failure, an emergency landing inside a windmill field could get a touch dicey.

You cannot blame the windmills for people landing where the windmills are. That is a dumb critique.
And windmills last far long enough to earn retirement.

 

[Santanasailor]

Its not a dumb critique, its a tongue in cheek bit of humor. You are dumb for not recognizing it.

As far as lasting to retirement, why are problems occurring with trying to dispose of the blades right NOW?

 

[a8b]

Its not a dumb critique, its a tongue in cheek bit of humor. You are dumb for not recognizing it.

You are correct.

I apologize. I have been neck deep in stupid and missed the humor. However, I will note your comment.

As far as lasting to retirement, why are problems occurring with trying to dispose of the blades right NOW?

confused me. Of course, in all of Europe windmills are recycled, as I understand it. In America we would not impose upon the profit of a regal capitalist so.

I will leave it to you to determine where the problem lies.

Probably something to do with dumb.

 

[Israel Hands]

While this is all correct, using fossil resources for food is not really a problem for climate change, right?

Typically natural gas is both a feedstock and fuel in the process of making nitrogen fertilizers. Both the manufacture and application of fertilizer are cited as major greenhouse gas sources, making agriculture supposedly the number 2 source of global greenhouse emissions. But the fact is that without new technology, the global population can't be fed without it.

 

[a8b]

afaik, methane digesters can do whatever natural gas can do.

Fertilizer and Climate Change

Human-made fertilizers have greatly boosted crop production, letting farmers grow more food on less land. But this uptick in fertilizer use has come at a cost: planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

climate.mit.edu

 

[Israel Hands]

afaik, methane digesters can do whatever natural gas can do.

Fertilizer and Climate Change

Human-made fertilizers have greatly boosted crop production, letting farmers grow more food on less land. But this uptick in fertilizer use has come at a cost: planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

climate.mit.edu

Is that so? That's just the kind of fast and loose statement I'd expect from alexandra.

There are lots of little ways that humanity could adjust the food system to make incremental savings. Reducing food waste is a big one. But there are no easy solutions for bringing about big-number savings. We are going the other direction. Eight billion people, heading for 10B by 2050. We have to double-crop in most parts of the world already in order to feed it. That takes synthetic fertilizer. It's a complex problem for which there are no quick and easy solutions.

 

[a8b]

You didn't read the article?

 

[Gunny]

we need some competition here. if you were to write a send-up, like a parody of the most outlandish pov you could possibly find. what would you do? I heard one guy was going to split water using the sun and then put it back together again into commercial natural gas. no. that doesn't sound right. or. how about capturing farts in the fore-peak and using those to fire the cooker in the morning? no..

The owner of our boat is notoriously cheap but an MIT grad. He’s investigating methane capture on our boat. Granted the plumbing may add complexity especially on the foredeck, but based on our typical TMO (total methane output) we’d be able to supply. 50hp sail drive with unlimited fuel.

 

[Israel Hands]

You didn't read the article?

Are you serious?
It's a one-page "explainer" that suggests that the fuel part of fertilizer production (one fraction of the total food problem) could be supplied by renewables. From where we are today, that bit sounds encouraging, but doesn't mean much until it moves from an academic research project to a globally implementable solution.

 

[floater]

The owner of our boat is notoriously cheap but an MIT grad. He’s investigating methane capture on our boat. Granted the plumbing may add complexity especially on the foredeck, but based on our typical TMO (total methane output) we’d be able to supply. 50hp sail drive with unlimited fuel.

finally! a fellow traveler. I have been working on my methane recapture system for ages - and yes, the complexity is truly baffling..

*actual picture from inside actual boat. not a hoax!

 

[seandepagnier]

This thread has been reduced geeks sitting in the corner of the lunchroom and spouting utter bullshit to each other about things they have no fucking clue about. Half the world's crops are grown with fertilizer, and 80% of the ammonia produced globally is used in fertilizer production. We are not "dumping it overboard!"

People living on boats are dumping it overboard. That is my point. On land, its much better as fertilizer.

It is a key requirement for our food system supporting 8 billion humans, and it is yet another significant way that we are much more committed to using fossil resources than we want to believe. It's not that we don't want to change - there have to be real workable, scalable solutions in order to change.

Do you have any real life experience in industries where food is grown, where building materials are produced, where goods are manufactured? (On a real scale, not a backyard in Portland.) Or if you are a techie, maybe you know firsthand about the mining of rare earth metals and subsequent production of chips and semiconductors etc. I don't think so. You just write fantasy pieces after parsing what you have read on the internet after leaving out the unfortunate reality bits that make your dreams unworkable. In other words, you are a bullshitter.

The bit that's really offensive is your sanctimoniousness. We diesel owners are akin to slaveholders(!). Obviously written by someone who doesn't own a boat that would be of the size and range to have had a diesel.

I was with you until this, but what exactly is "would be of the size and range to have had a diesel" ?? The boat I sailed had a diesel originally and I removed it. There can be sailing boats of any size without a diesel and always have been. I think from this you dont really know what you are saying.

You are making false assumptions but mostly just misinterpreting my words (see first comment)

So you come on this site and preach to old men about how they should get rid of their wicked diesels, when in reality most here are probably owning their last boat and wondering if they have 5 years left before they sell it. And most of them probably burn less diesel in a year than the average American burns in his car or truck in a week. Yeah, this group should hop aboard your fantasy wagon, and convert their boats to hydrogen. Great investment idea. Dumbass.

You didnt read what I said about hydrogen which was never to use it to propel a boat

My "fantasy wagon" is no fantasy for me as I have cruised all over without diesel so I know it is not only possible, but fairly easy to do. What does this have anything to do with what an american burns when americans are among the largest emitters?

If you compare your emissions to elon musk for example, then we can all make many more times the emissions and be "ok". "dumbass" lol.

 

[Israel Hands]

You are making false assumptions but mostly just misinterpreting my words (see first comment)

You didnt read what I said about hydrogen which was never to use it to propel a boat

And you are confusing yourself with all the bullshit you've laid out in this thread. You wrote that we are dumping hydrogen overboard" in a manner that suggested the world was awash in free, wasted hydrogen. Now you are saying that it's only people living on boats that are "dumping it overboard." Are you talking about hydrogen, or shit? You seem to know much more about the latter.

 

[seandepagnier]

While this is all correct, using fossil resources for food is not really a problem for climate change, right?

it is a problem, yes

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

We should be more specific. Using hydrogen to power the existing economy etc.

hydrogen itself is not a hoax but an element with all sorts of interesting properties.

I mean, of all the techs that can easily/cheaply go carbon neutral, diesel is number one. Change a few rubber seals and run raw veggie oil/meat fat/Algae Oil. BAM! Carbon loop closed.

Yes. So why aren't you doing this?? I have always advocated for this solution as one of many alternatives, yet when I ask people, fewer and fewer are doing this in recent years.

Fuck off.
It means lithium's cannot take it. And it is simple. The Charge C is a fraction of the output C.
To stupid it down a bit for you they can be putting out say, 100A, to push a motor, but cannot take said 100A to charge.

The lithium battery can typically charge at 1C rates. Meaning full charged in 1 hour. This would be 100A in 100AH battery. This is never normally a limitation as you dont run at such rates anyway.

Jesus help me!
All of this is bullshit. Helicopters do not work like this and none of this is needed.
There are plenty of very efficient electric drives that need neither the complexity and cost of dynamic foils.

in laminar flow without waves yes. To achieve ultimate efficiency in turbulent water you need dynamic foils

The miracles that will make hydrogen finally work is always just about here. It is, and always was, a scam. A scam funded by fossil fuels to divert attention from real alternatives.

Didn't we establish 50 gallons uncompressed hydrogen is 2200btu? This is enough energy to cook for a week (or cook less efficiently at least several days)

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Oh fuck right off.
In that nuclear power creates more power than it consumes, you can fuck right off a second time.

i never said anything about nuclear power. I said using electricity to split urine creates more hydrogen energy than electricity consumed.

In that solar panels and wind mills generate far more power over time than they consume, you can fuck right off a third and forth time.
In that growing actual crops for oil is WAY MORE EFFICIENT, and is an easy replacement for the infrastructure we already have, you can fuck off again.

growing crops for oil is few percent efficient at best turning the sunlight into usable work. sugar cane to ethanol is a bit higher, perhaps 9% in an ideal case (solar powered distillation)

solar panels are above 20% already and dont have the issues associated with growing things.

There will never be a day where someone will buy a quart/gallon/tank of ammonia/urine/other bullshit to power a hydrogen powered fishing trip/sailboat.

That day has already come.

There are however a lot of other energy alternatives that you can do that with today.


How many hydrogen powered aircraft have flown around the world? Without refueling?

No lithium aircraft has done this flight non-stop yet.

Why did the lithium powered aircraft that did flu all the fuck around the world not use fuel cells or hydrogen?

it is primarily powered by solar generated while in flight, so a low-efficiency round trip storage like hydrogen in a system with limited energy input wouldnt make much sense.

They could have used hydrogen which was charged while parked on the ground but it would take a long time.

Is it because hydrogen is a myth created by fossil fuel companies to distract from real things that work?

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Amas designed to store 6000PSI / 25KWH of hydrogen?

its at only 600psi they store that much. at 6000 psi would be 500KWH for both.

Are you literally fucking nuts? One crack and a spark from hitting something in the ocean and what the fuck do you think will happen?

spark from hitting something in the ocean? Maybe if the boat were steel?

Is your fantasy the most creative and stupid way to kill sailors expensively?

No you fucking idiot. No one says this.
The reason larger props are more efficient is because they can spin slower, and drag is a cubic. Larger props can move more mass fast enough to create thrust, but do not have to throw it inefficiently fast.

ICE cannot spin a large prop because they do not have the torque at low RPM. So the prop suffers.

They could spin a larger prop using gear box to reduce the rpm. They just dont, instead trading off a lot of efficiency for other design factors. In large ships they do spin the prop slower and it is larger.

This is also what I do with the electric motor to get enough torque.

This is why a fixed point diesel electric generator and electric drive work well on boats.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Plenty of physics to show it will never work, and there are better alternatives available right now.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Diesel, again, can easily become carbon neutral. Your fantasy cannot.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Bullshit.
The problem is not the few tonnes of fuel burned to move sailboats. With a technology that can easily be swapped to a carbon neutral source.

So do it. swap it out with a carbon neutral source and it's not a problem anymore. As long as it is not swapped it is a problem.

You could say the problem is not the few tons burned to move private jets. It is all a problem, so the fuel burned by sailboats is a problem too. People on sailboats generally cause and have caused large emissions in their lives.

It is the gigatonnes of fossil fuels that are burned to make electric power and move cars.

I dont condone the use of cars but it would be unfair to single out cars and not boats especially when people on boats already have an obvious alternative (sail) and are much more able to afford not to use diesel as well. The cost difference of using soybean oil is not a lot.

Anything that distracts from that is bullshit.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

you mean an element on the periodic table.

I do not know if this is more offensive or stupid.
It has sufficient levels of both to render anything you ever say to be replied to with this stupid quote of yours.

Go fuck yourself.

Diesel is single-handedly used, to this day, to raise billions out of abject poverty. To free them from drudgery. And it is quite hopeful that it will be easy for them to switch to carbon neutral oil they can grow themselves.

Sure, and using it to power your yacht because you did not want to wait for the tide is not "raising out of abject poverty" as well as the fact that per-capita the consumption of diesel for these billions is a fraction as well.

Your demonization of diesel is wrong and horrible. So, expected from you.

the diesel engine has done more harm than good in this world, that is for sure. As a tool for environment exploitation they are a catalyst for our own extinction. People who use diesel engines are sure horrible too: I think it's from breathing the fumes.

Nuclear, solar and wind.

What do you think is nuclear waste?
Molten salt reactors eat what Americans call nuclear waste.

They also dont actually exist.

 

[seandepagnier]

I own over 600 acres of carbon-sink forested land. My power is PV off-grid and hydroelectric on-grid.

So your ancestors literally killed every native on tasmania (genocide), stole the land, and now you illegitimately claim 600 acres of land that in a natural state is carbon neutral (trees emit co2 when they die and rot) as somehow being a "steward"

My carbon footprint is a tiny fraction of yours, for all your online virtue-signaling.

Its obvious that it is not. I dont even use any grid power. hydro power has a significant negative impact because of the anaerobic digestion that occurs in the reservoir releasing methane making it 10 times worse (average) than wind in warming effect per unit of energy generated.

I'll burn all the diesel I want to and I'll keep doing so as long as I can afford it. Then I'll burn something else that's likely worse - bio-diesel from canola for example.

its not worse.

Meanwhile you'll still be in your sheltered space doing nothing of note.

FKT

I sailed down to new zealand and set some people straight last time. Maybe I can visit you instead next time and rectify your situation.

 

[seandepagnier]

And you are confusing yourself with all the bullshit you've laid out in this thread. You wrote that we are dumping hydrogen overboard" in a manner that suggested the world was awash in free, wasted hydrogen.

No, I said people living on boats dump urine overboard and this is a waste.

Now you are saying that it's only people living on boats that are "dumping it overboard." Are you talking about hydrogen, or shit? You seem to know much more about the latter.

both urine can and shit can be converted into usable fuels as discussed.

 

[221J]

Two things:

1) Internal combustion engines aren't going to instantly disappear.
2) The only thing that slows down climate change may be fewer humans. There might be enough innovation to counter population growth but I personally doubt it.

 

[a8b]

it is a problem, yes

How is it a problem for climate change?
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

We should be more specific. Using hydrogen to power the existing economy etc.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

hydrogen itself is not a hoax but an element with all sorts of interesting properties.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Yes. So why aren't you doing this?? I have always advocated for this solution as one of many alternatives, yet when I ask people, fewer and fewer are doing this in recent years.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

The lithium battery can typically charge at 1C rates. Meaning full charged in 1 hour. This would be 100A in 100AH battery. This is never normally a limitation as you dont run at such rates anyway.

Discharge rates of 1-5C are common. Recharge rates of 1C+ will shorten the life of the battery. Lithium is the problem. Again, you can build a big enough pack .
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

in laminar flow without waves yes. To achieve ultimate efficiency in turbulent water you need dynamic foils

You say 'ultimate efficiency' and we are talking about helicopters...
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Didn't we establish 50 gallons uncompressed hydrogen is 2200btu? This is enough energy to cook for a week (or cook less efficiently at least several days)

66 gallons.
And it is less than half the energy needed to boil a gallon of water.
And plenty of energy to blow up an ama.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

i never said anything about nuclear power. I said using electricity to split urine creates more hydrogen energy than electricity consumed.

Lies! We both know you cannot get it back because even you admitted...

I came the the conclusion that I wont get electricity back.

So fuck off!
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

growing crops for oil is few percent efficient at best turning the sunlight into usable work. sugar cane to ethanol is a bit higher, perhaps 9% in an ideal case (solar powered distillation)

Oh fuck right the fuck off. Oil from the appropriate crops in a diesel is far more efficient/less deadly than alcohol in a otto cycle. Now I know you are a Fossil fuel apologist/agent.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

solar panels are above 20% already and dont have the issues associated with growing things.

Oh fuck right off. You have no idea what that 20% number means. Pretty sure you are innumerate.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

No lithium aircraft has done this flight non-stop yet.

Oh, was I wrong? Did they use hydrogen fuel cells to do it?
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

it is primarily powered by solar generated while in flight, so a low-efficiency round trip storage like hydrogen in a system with limited energy input wouldnt make much sense.

We agree. hydrogen does not make much sense.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

They could have used hydrogen which was charged while parked on the ground but it would take a long time.

No. They literally could not.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

its at only 600psi they store that much. at 6000 psi would be 500KWH for both.

Ah, so how many sailors would that kill?
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

spark from hitting something in the ocean? Maybe if the boat were steel?

So your safety plan is, how can it spark? Fuck Right the Fuck Off!
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

So do it. swap it out with a carbon neutral source and it's not a problem anymore. As long as it is not swapped it is a problem.

But would it not be "worse than slavery"? Strange change of tune...
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

You could say the problem is not the few tons burned to move private jets. It is all a problem, so the fuel burned by sailboats is a problem too. People on sailboats generally cause and have caused large emissions in their lives.

Bullshit! You innumerate fuck. You have no IDEA of the relative magnitudes of the shit you are vomiting out your obscene mouth.
Until you have an actual fact based set of arguments you can assemble into a cogent thought, you should well constrain your fingers, IMHO.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

I dont condone the use of cars but it would be unfair to single out cars and not boats especially when people on boats already have an obvious alternative (sail) and are much more able to afford not to use diesel as well. The cost difference of using soybean oil is not a lot.

Except the damage done by cars is many orders of magnitudes worse than boats. You are suggesting the staining out the gnat, and swallowing the whole pig.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

the diesel engine has done more harm than good in this world, that is for sure. As a tool for environment exploitation they are a catalyst for our own extinction. People who use diesel engines are sure horrible too: I think it's from breathing the fumes.

Odd you do not mention the far worse Otto cycle, that is unsaveable, you agent of the Fossil Fuel Companies.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

They also dont actually exist.

Ha. You ignorant fuck. Yes they exist.
Far more useful than hydrogen.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

 

[a8b]

2) The only thing that slows down climate change may be fewer humans. There might be enough innovation to counter population growth but I personally doubt it.

The best way to slow population growth is to give women rights.
Every location that it has happened, population growth goes negative.