Alternative to the Battery wows?

[AS]

Ran across this short article about an interesting project at the Delft University in The Netherlands:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dutch-students-just-unveiled-world-153606032.html

Uli
AS

[[email protected]]

On Monday, 8 March 2021 at 18:26:28 UTC, AS wrote:
> Ran across this short article about an interesting project at the Delft University in The Netherlands:
> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dutch-students-just-unveiled-world-153606032.html
>
> Uli
> AS
Easy to tell it's H-powered ... look at all the water vapour it's left behind! ;-o)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 3/8/2021 10:35 AM:
> On Monday, 8 March 2021 at 18:26:28 UTC, AS wrote:
>> Ran across this short article about an interesting project at the Delft University in The Netherlands:
>> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dutch-students-just-unveiled-world-153606032.html
>>
>> Uli
>> AS
> Easy to tell it's H-powered ... look at all the water vapour it's left behind! ;-o)
>
The article startles with the announcement the aircraft will have a 164 foot wingspan! Better
to use the developers' website at ...

https://aerodelft.nl/project-phoenix/

.... where you learn it is an 18M wingspan. Hydrogen aircraft have flown before, but I don't
know if any used liquid hydrogen. I did see recently that Toyota is offering the hydrogen
fueled Mirai sedan for 2021. For our electric gliders, batteries will remain the best choice
because energy density is not critical, as it is for airplanes.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Nicholas Kennedy]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/402713842375?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-213727-13078-0&mkcid=2&itemid=402713842375&targetid=4580634170587483&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=410490110&mkgroupid=1232552761418727&rlsatarget=pla-4580634170587483&abcId=9300491&merchantid=51291&msclkid=e287854a4d1117e55ad2e50c37173811

How about just scale this up a bit.
Already available technology , it works great!
Available right off the shelf.
No fire problem.
No carbs or FI to fiddle with.
I think you can buy a folding nose prop today.
Just run a piece of 6" PVC under your seat run the rubber band nose to tail and wind it up.
Nick
T

[Mark Mocho]

I recommend doing a bit of research into how hydrogen is produced (mostly) from fossil fuels. Methane (or "clean-burning Natural Gas") is the primary source, and the process is pretty energy intensive. Electrolysis is possible, but at lower energy efficiency.

Storage of gaseous hydrogen to the typical 5,000 to 10,000 psi used is a very real energy and safety concern. Liquefaction is more energy intensive and much less safe due to the refrigeration required to keep the hydrogen from "boiling off" and producing an extremely combustible cloud. Lose the refrigeration and you are in for a real treat. Hydrogen molecules are so small that they leak through anything.

Storage by adsorption (not absorption) in metal hydrides is much safer, but requires significant energy to store the hydrogen and then release it for use. Add in the cost of building an entirely new infrastructure to produce, store and deliver hydrogen as a fuel and the "clean" benefits are quickly outweighed by the need to build the infrastructure using conventional energy sources, i.e. oil & gas.

And I seem to remember hearing that water vapor is more of a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.

In short, hydrogen is not the super-simple solution to all of the world's problems, and could, in fact, exacerbate them.

[Moshe Braner]

On 3/8/2021 1:53 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 3/8/2021 10:35 AM:
>> On Monday, 8 March 2021 at 18:26:28 UTC, AS wrote:
>>> Ran across this short article about an interesting project at the
>>> Delft University in The Netherlands:
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dutch-students-just-unveiled-world-153606032.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Uli
>>> AS
>> Easy to tell it's H-powered ... look at all the water vapour it's left
>> behind!Â* ;-o)
>>
> The article startles with the announcement the aircraft will have a 164
> foot wingspan! Better to use the developers' website at ...
>
> https://aerodelft.nl/project-phoenix/
>
> ... where you learn it is an 18M wingspan. Hydrogen aircraft have flown
> before, but I don't know if any used liquid hydrogen. I did see recently
> that Toyota is offering the hydrogen fueled Mirai sedan for 2021. For
> our electric gliders, batteries will remain the best choice because
> energy density is not critical, as it is for airplanes.

"Hydrogen is kept in a cryogenic tank at -253°C and warmed to 0°C using
a complex tubing system."

The hydrogen may be light, but the cryogenic tank isn't. Hydrogen is
notoriously difficult to store in a dense form. If you can make a fuel
cell affordable (big if), there are better fuels for the purpose, that
store as a liquid in ambient conditions or mild pressure, e.g.,
methanol, ammonia... (All of which can in theory be produced using
solar power, but don't hold your breath, it's makes no sense economically.)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 11:34 AM:
> And I seem to remember hearing that water vapor is more of a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.

Not so much when it comes to climate change, because as water vapor increases (primarily due to
global warming), it forms more clouds, which reflect the heat, tending to reduce global warming
- all part of a natural cycle that's be going on since the earth began. CO2 does not condense,
and we are adding it to the atmosphere at a far higher rate than natural carbon sinks can
remove it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Mark Mocho]

On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:42:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 11:34 AM:
> > And I seem to remember hearing that water vapor is more of a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.
> Not so much when it comes to climate change, because as water vapor increases (primarily due to
> global warming), it forms more clouds, which reflect the heat, tending to reduce global warming
> - all part of a natural cycle that's be going on since the earth began. CO2 does not condense,
> and we are adding it to the atmosphere at a far higher rate than natural carbon sinks can
> remove it.
> --
However, using hydrogen as an alternative fuel WILL add to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Note the following statement:

"...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same." (from the American Chemical Society's ACS Climate Science Toolkit)

The key phrase is the last one: "with all other variables remaining the same." Imagine that instead of seeing "normal" contrails behind a high flying airliner, there is a huge plume of water vapor that results from burning hydrogen. That definitely adds to atmospheric water vapor, independent of the natural evaporation/condensation cycle that forms clouds.

Of course, the "Chemtrails" paranoids will get a corresponding boost in popularity.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 3:10 PM:
> On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:42:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 11:34 AM:
>>> And I seem to remember hearing that water vapor is more of a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.
>> Not so much when it comes to climate change, because as water vapor increases (primarily due to
>> global warming), it forms more clouds, which reflect the heat, tending to reduce global warming
>> - all part of a natural cycle that's be going on since the earth began. CO2 does not condense,
>> and we are adding it to the atmosphere at a far higher rate than natural carbon sinks can
>> remove it.
>> --
> However, using hydrogen as an alternative fuel WILL add to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Note the following statement:
>
> "...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same." (from the American Chemical Society's ACS Climate Science Toolkit)
>
> The key phrase is the last one: "with all other variables remaining the same." Imagine that instead of seeing "normal" contrails behind a high flying airliner, there is a huge plume of water vapor that results from burning hydrogen. That definitely adds to atmospheric water vapor, independent of the natural evaporation/condensation cycle that forms clouds.
>
> Of course, the "Chemtrails" paranoids will get a corresponding boost in popularity.
>
Again, the water vapor will condense, and restore the natural balance; CO2 does not condense,
but remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The CO2 in the atmosphere is measurable,
and has been increasing for many decades wherever it's measured around the world; water vapor
comes and goes with the weather.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:10:08 -0800, Mark Mocho wrote:

> On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:42:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 11:34 AM:
>> > And I seem to remember hearing that water vapor is more of a
>> > "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.
>> Not so much when it comes to climate change, because as water vapor
>> increases (primarily due to global warming), it forms more clouds,
>> which reflect the heat, tending to reduce global warming - all part of
>> a natural cycle that's be going on since the earth began. CO2 does not
>> condense, and we are adding it to the atmosphere at a far higher rate
>> than natural carbon sinks can remove it.
>> --
> However, using hydrogen as an alternative fuel WILL add to the amount of
> water vapor in the atmosphere. Note the following statement:
>
> "...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse
> effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature,
> but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no
> increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon
> dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have
> changed with all other variables remaining the same." (from the American
> Chemical Society's ACS Climate Science Toolkit)
>
> The key phrase is the last one: "with all other variables remaining the
> same." Imagine that instead of seeing "normal" contrails behind a high
> flying airliner, there is a huge plume of water vapor that results from
> burning hydrogen. That definitely adds to atmospheric water vapor,
> independent of the natural evaporation/condensation cycle that forms
> clouds.
>
> Of course, the "Chemtrails" paranoids will get a corresponding boost in
> popularity.

If H2 was to replace hydrocarbons as the main fuel type, where would it
come from? Electrolysis of water? Stripping carbon out of hydrocarbons?
ow would the cost compare with other power sources once transport to the
point of use is included in the price?

It appears that the last two are the current favourites in the form of
steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal
gasification, with extraction from carbon compounds providing 96% and are
not particularly green because they all produce a lot of carbon oxides as
a waste product - and we don't have a good way of using them or keeping
them out of the atmosphere.

Bottom line: hydrogen has good energy capacity per kilogram, but this
tends not to look so good once you consider the cost of carrying it
around in compact, multi-kilogram quantities. Pipes should be fine,
provided somebody manages to invent a reasonably light pipe material that
H2 can't leak through, but you can't power road/rail vehicles or aircraft
with piped hydrogen!


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Mark Mocho]

"water vapor comes and goes with the weather."

Yes, but now we are talking about combusting H2 with O2, which is an entirely new source of H2O vapor.

And, if you want another little problem to solve with the storage and use of hydrogen, look up "Hydrogen Embrittlement."

I'm not saying it won't be feasible, but it isn't by any means a magic panacea.

In his book, "Skunk Works," Ben Rich talks about Lockheed's experiments with producing and storing liquid hydrogen in the 1950's for possible use as a fuel for high flying, Mach 3+ reconnaissance aircraft. The chapter is titled "Blowing Up Burbank." (That should give you a hint.) Their conclusions were that it was terribly inefficient due to the size of the storage vessel needed for acceptable range, it was very dangerous to transport and store and the infrastructure needed to ensure availability around the world would cost more than the rest of the program, including development of the aircraft and training Air Force personnel to handle it. They went with a new fuel (JP-7) and built the A-12, followed by the SR-71.

[Moshe Braner]

On 3/8/2021 6:10 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
> On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:42:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 11:34 AM:
>>> And I seem to remember hearing that water vapor is more of a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.
>> Not so much when it comes to climate change, because as water vapor increases (primarily due to
>> global warming), it forms more clouds, which reflect the heat, tending to reduce global warming
>> - all part of a natural cycle that's be going on since the earth began. CO2 does not condense,
>> and we are adding it to the atmosphere at a far higher rate than natural carbon sinks can
>> remove it.
>> --
> However, using hydrogen as an alternative fuel WILL add to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Note the following statement:
>
> "...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same." (from the American Chemical Society's ACS Climate Science Toolkit)
>
> The key phrase is the last one: "with all other variables remaining the same." Imagine that instead of seeing "normal" contrails behind a high flying airliner, there is a huge plume of water vapor that results from burning hydrogen. That definitely adds to atmospheric water vapor, independent of the natural evaporation/condensation cycle that forms clouds.
>
> Of course, the "Chemtrails" paranoids will get a corresponding boost in popularity.
>

Naaah, to "make" the hydrogen you'd need to separate it from water.
It's a closed loop. There are many hurdles, but this one is not. Of
course you can separate it from methane (natural gas) instead, but if
you burn the gas directly you get the same water vapor.

I find the subject line of this thread appropriate though, there are too
many "wows" out there but the "vaporware" never materializes.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Mark Mocho wrote on 3/8/2021 5:12 PM:
> Yes, but now we are talking about combusting H2 with O2, which is an entirely new source of H2O vapor.
Yes, a new source, but it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere, as the additional water vapor
will condense. CO2 does not condense, and lingers for hundreds of years.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dan Marotta]

That's terrific! The energy content in H2 beats anything except nuclear
power, and wouldn't it be great to fly a 72 ton glider around with
unlimited launch and retrieve capability? But one statement in the
article has me perplexed:

"Current hydrogen extraction is highly energy intensive, so ways to
harvest “green hydrogen� using water electrolysis are being explored."

I believe that it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen from water
than is realized by burning the hydrogen. I have no idea of the energy
cost to liquefy and distill hydrogen. Can anybody shed some light on
that? I can see giant smoke stacks spewing sooty black smoke into the
air due to burning coal to generate the electricity to compress the air
to harvest the hydrogen. Well... Maybe not. Perhaps covering Europe
with wind mills to make the electricity and using sailing ships to
deliver the H2 around the world.

Credit to Dr. Seuss and Rube Goldberg for the inspiration.

Dan
5J

On 3/8/21 11:26 AM, AS wrote:
> Ran across this short article about an interesting project at the Delft University in The Netherlands:
> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dutch-students-just-unveiled-world-153606032.html
>
> Uli
> AS
>

[John Galloway[_2_]]

On Tuesday, 9 March 2021 at 16:24:12 UTC, Dan Marotta wrote:
> That's terrific! The energy content in H2 beats anything except nuclear
> power, and wouldn't it be great to fly a 72 ton glider around with
> unlimited launch and retrieve capability? But one statement in the
> article has me perplexed:
>
> "Current hydrogen extraction is highly energy intensive, so ways to
> harvest “green hydrogen� using water electrolysis are being explored."
>
> I believe that it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen from water
> than is realized by burning the hydrogen. I have no idea of the energy
> cost to liquefy and distill hydrogen. Can anybody shed some light on
> that? I can see giant smoke stacks spewing sooty black smoke into the
> air due to burning coal to generate the electricity to compress the air
> to harvest the hydrogen. Well... Maybe not. Perhaps covering Europe
> with wind mills to make the electricity and using sailing ships to
> deliver the H2 around the world.
>
> Credit to Dr. Seuss and Rube Goldberg for the inspiration.
>
> Dan
> 5J
> On 3/8/21 11:26 AM, AS wrote:
> > Ran across this short article about an interesting project at the Delft University in The Netherlands:
> > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dutch-students-just-unveiled-world-153606032.html
> >
> > Uli
> > AS
> >
It looks like covering Saudi Arabia with solar panels is the way!

https://tinyurl.com/3kjwd6nf

[Moshe Braner]

On 3/9/2021 11:23 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> That's terrific!Â* The energy content in H2 beats anything except nuclear
> power, and wouldn't it be great to fly a 72 ton glider around with
> unlimited launch and retrieve capability?Â* But one statement in the
> article has me perplexed:
>
> "Current hydrogen extraction is highly energy intensive, so ways to
> harvest “green hydrogen� using water electrolysis are being explored."
>
> I believe that it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen from water
> than is realized by burning the hydrogen.Â* I have no idea of the energy
> cost to liquefy and distill hydrogen.Â* Can anybody shed some light on
> that?Â* I can see giant smoke stacks spewing sooty black smoke into the
> air due to burning coal to generate the electricity to compress the air
> to harvest the hydrogen.Â* Well...Â* Maybe not.Â* Perhaps covering Europe
> with wind mills to make the electricity and using sailing ships to
> deliver the H2 around the world.
>
> Credit to Dr. Seuss and Rube Goldberg for the inspiration.

Yeah, the wide-eyed talk about hydrogen being "the most common element
in the universe" is pure nonsense. There are no "hydrogen wells" on our
planet. It's an energy carrier, not an energy source. And it's not a
good energy carrier, since it leaks through everything etc.

You can use natural gas or other fossil fuels to produce hydrogen from
other materials. Or solar. But currently it's mostly natural gas. And
yes it uses more energy to "produce" than you get from burning it. Or
even from using it in fuel cell$. About 4x more, all told, relative to
using electric power directly.

But the "hydrogen economy" rah-rah seems to emerge from the shadows for
another round every decade or so. Then it goes back into the shadows to
keep fusion energy company.

If the issue is what to do with surplus solar or wind energy, in the
(few) times and places where it's available, there are many other ideas,
including the production of liquid fuels which are much more practical
than hydrogen. Methanol and ammonia are some I've heard of. Yes they
are toxic if spilled. So is gasoline. At least you know when there's a
leak.